m 



im\ 



a 



I mm- 

■ 

I ■ 






■ 



■ 






m 



M 



\ / ■ '*'&-'. '%■ ./ .*> £.' v, % ** 
































; ^ k ;*&-■ 



' *u 



" rO 







-P 



^ 

^ 

* 













bcJ ?^H 



vOo. 




oq % 




,0 ©. 






- 



^ V 



i 



"^ ^' 



> ^ 



.^'% 









o 









"VV< 



*>^ * 8 1 1 






^ ,^ V 



•^ e* 



** ^ 










> <; .«,* 



^0 X 



^ 



s 










> 



.# :/ ^ 



..o 






•>? '- 



! 



></>„ 






"S- -JO 



^ '^. ■ 





























o ° ^ 




• V x 



\° °x. \ « 



V* s 




^ *'J*" 






3 .*/ %* 



V A 















^ ^ 



*V 



C 

,0 a 
















^ <F 










o o 
s * » , ^. 




"% v^ V 













\0 ©, 



"<2*. * . 



^> -V- 

V" 










- ^ v^ 









A 8 - 



6. +> ^, Al *jf 



^ V* 



O X 












4* V ^ 



< c 



*\> -vie* '/- 



D ' n . i * .,\ V 



,0o y 



^ ++ 



P ^ 







v^ ^ 



• A^ 



' V'^- N< 



/ 

DANGEKS 



7ESUIT INSTRUCTION. 



comprising: 



/ 






I. SERMON ON JESUIT INSTRUCTION, BY W. S. POTTS. 
II. REVIEW OF DR. POTTS' SERMON, BY 0. A. BROWNSON. 
III. REPLY TO BROWNSON'S REVIEW, BY W. S. POTTS. 




^> ST. LOUIS : 
PUBLISHED BY KEITH & WOODS. 

1846. 



&J*< 






JOB PRINTING OFFICE — REVEILLE BUILDING. 



PREFACE. 



It may be proper to say a few words in explanation of the following pam- 
phlet. During the last fall, the writer, in the course of his ordinary ministerial 
duties, delivered a discourse on the duties of Christian parents to their baptized 
children, designed to exhibit to the people of his charge the nature of the vow 
taken by them in the administration of this Sacrament, and a particular instance 
in which he conceived some of them were violating it. The Sermon was pre- 
pared and delivered with no controversial design, but in the performance of an 
imperative duty. The congregation, conceiving that the publication of the dis- 
course would be productive of good, requested and obtained the manuscript for 
this purpose. 

The Review of the Sermon, which will be found in these pages, appeared in 
" Brownson's Quarterly Review for January, 1846 ;" a periodical published in 
Boston, Mass., and endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church. This Review 
would have been passed over with a very brief notice, had it not been for the 
extraordinary efforts made use of by the Jesuits and Romish Ecclesiastics of thia 
and the neighboring dioceses. A very large edition of the Review was imme- 
diately printed in this city, at the press of the Bishop's organ, and sent by mail,, 
and by the hands of private members of the Church, into hundreds of Protes- 
tant families far and near. At the same time their periodicals were lauding it to 
the skies, as a most wonderful production. Under these circumstances the 
writer was led to extend his articles in the " Herald of Religious Liberty" fur- 
ther than he originally designed, and to take up the prominent points of the 
controversy, which had been mistified or swaggered over in the Review, with 
the manifest design of deluding the uninformed. During the publication of the 
numbers of the Reply in the Herald, many of the readers having expressed a 
desire that the whole should be reprinted in a pamphlet form, the author has 
thought proper to revise the whole, and present it to the public in its present 
shape. 

The pamphlets preceding the Reply have been reprinted, because the frequent 
references in the Review and Reply to what had preceded them, seemed to 
render such a course necessary, in order to a clear understanding of the whole 
matter of controversy; and because the aulhor desired that not only his own 
congregation but his Protestant fellow-citizens should have,, from the pen of a 
Roman Catholic writer, a distinct announcement of the designs of that Church 
upon our country, and of the arguments by which her writers attempt to main' 
tain her system of idolatry and will-worship. W. S. P. 

St. Louis, October 24, I486. 



DANGERS OF JESUIT INSTRUCTION. 
A 

SERMON, 

PREACHED I>" 

THE SECOND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 

IN ST. LOUIS, 

SEPTEMBER 2 5th, 1845. 

BY W3I, S. POTTS, D. D. 



" Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 1 — 
Eph. vi. 4. 

The text is an apostolic precept given to those who hold in the 
Church of Christ the important and responsible relation of parents. 
The Church, consequently, requires in every case in which the Sacra- 
ment of Baptism is administered to a child, that the parents bring them- 
selves under a solemn obligation to " endeavor, by all the means of 
God's appointment, to bring up their child in the nurture and ad- 
monition of the Lord." 

As in the administration of this Sacrament in the case of an adult, 
he gives himself up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in new- 
ness of life ; so parents, in presenting their children, make a formal 
surrender of them to God, and obligate themselves, as guardians and 
instructors appointed for the express purpose, to bring them up as 
God's sons and daughters. For their diligence and faithfulness in the 
discharge of this duty every parent is to answer, first to the Church 
officers, whose duty it is to see to the fulfilment of the vows publicly 
made in the Church, and secondly, to the great Judge of quick and 



dead. Hence arises the double duty, that officers should see to it that 
the Church is fully instructed in reference to the nature of this cove- 
nant engagement, and that parents carefully consider the meaning of 
the vow that rents upon them. 

L What is the meaning of the precept in our text? 

1. The world translated " to bring up" signifies to nourish, imply- 
ing a care and tenderness such as the nurse takes of the infant, guarding 
against such food, exposure, exercise, as would be hurtful, and supply- 
ing whatever may be necessary to its health, strength, and perfect 
physical development. 

2. The next word, (paideia) translated nurture, applies to the 
whole discipline of the mind of the child, that which we call the 
education, including the instruction, the example set before it, the 
admonition in cases of negligence, and the rewards and punishments 
to be employed. Thus, the obligation under which God brings every 
parent consecrating his child in baptism respects the whole of its 
education. There must be especial care in the selection of an instruc- 
tor, examining what are his principles, and what his information and 
capacity to give instruction. Care also must be exercised as to the 
things taught. Whether they are consistent with truth and facts ; 
whether adapted to the growth, expansion and subsequent usefulness 
of the mind trained under that teaching. As the mind is more im- 
portant than the body, there should be a corresponding increase of 
carefulness in selecting the teacher to whom is to be committed the 
development and formation of the character, over that which is re- 
quired in selecting the nurse to whom is committed the development 
of flie bodily vigor. If you would not employ a nurse whom you 
esteem unprincipled or lacking in capacity, to supply your place in 
watching over the health and nourishment of your offspring, you ought 
surely to have a double caution in employing tlie teacher to whom you 
submit their bodies and souls. 

Further, in this nuturing of the mind is included the example set 
before the child. This will always have more influence than the pre- 
cepts inculcated. No Christian parent, it is to be presumed, could be 
so lost to his responsibility to his children as to permit, in the example 
of their teacher, that of a drunkard, a profane swearer, or a gambler, 
whatever might be the promises made concerning the precepts to be 
taught. The example would.be always present to contradict the pre- 
cept, and just at that season of life when the mind most quickly appre- 
hends the former, and very slowly receives the latter. Neither ought 
an infidel, or one denying essential truths, to be employed. A teacher 



possessing any ordinary degree of tact will have no difficulty in win- 
ning the respect, if not the affections, of his pupil, then it is easy to 
transfer this respect and deference to the opinions embraced by the 
preceptor, who will appear to the pupil's mind amongst the wisest of 
men. Now, it will avail little for the teacher to inculcate the Bible as 
truth, if the pupil knows his teacher considers it all w a cunningly 
devised fable ;" or, for the teacher to instruct the pupil in the lan- 
guage of the catechism, the learner knowing that he who gives the 
lesson esteems it all an arrant falsehood. The example, consequently, 
in this matter, reaches beyond the outward acts, and embraces the very 
views and feelings of the mind. 

Another very important item in this education respects the discip- 
line, or rewards and punishments that are to be employed. JVb 
discipline is utter ruin. God governs by rewards ami punishments 
as best adapted to the character of the human race: All who govern 
under Him must govern on the same general principle, or their gov- 
ernment will be contrary to the constitution of society and the human 
heart. An important part of education consists in teaching the young 
to govern themselves ; to learn to subdue improper passions, and con- 
trol unreasonable desires ; on this branch of training the happiness of 
the young is more dependant than on any other. In order to this, 
reason, not arbitrary command, is to be resorted to ,' point out the 
evil of sin and the consequences of indulgence ,~ admonish with kind- 
ness and affection where the evil has been the result of ignorance or 
thoughtlessness ; hold out the reward of approbation and praise to 
encourage the pupil to- tread the path of well doing, but punish, with 
due severity, wilfulness and wanton disobedience. This rule the 
parent is to lay down for himself in his own family government, and 
is to require at the hands of those whom he selects to discharge the 
duty of instructor in his place. One way to bias improperly the mind 
consists In administering improper rewards and punishments, as where 
indulgence in sinful gratifications is made the reward of well doing, 
or prescribing prayer or any religious duty as a punishment for doing 
evil. Such things confuse all the child's ideas of morals, and pervert 
in his mind the idea of God's worship, which should be the source 
of happiness. 

3. The governing idea in the application of all these means is con- 
tained in the next words, " admonition of the Lord." In other words, 
the education of the baptized child is to have for its foundation and 
end the placing before the mind the character of God, and the duties 
growing out of its relation to him. Hence the instruction required to 
be given is strictly Christian instruction. They, only, who have felt 



4 

the teachings of God's spirit, and have studied prayerfully and with 
great care the doctrines and precepts of God's word, can be fully 
qualified to give it. The example set before the child must not be 
that of worldliness, which is enmity against God j not of doctrinal 
error, which will betray the child into ruinous falsehood ; not of 
looseness and indifference to sacred things, which cultivate the natural 
depravity of the heart and blind the mind ; but must be a godly ex. 
ample, and hence can be set by no one whose heart is not renewed by 
the Holy Spirit. 

4. These are God's rules, as laid down in the precept of our text, 
for the direction of parents in the management of his consecrated 
children, that they may be trained for heaven. A parent of ordinary 
reflection, having committed a child to a boarding school, would not 
hesitate a moment as to the propriety of removing it, so soon as he 
found the instruction bad and the example ruinous that was there set. 
So, no one of you who are parents superintending the education of 
God's children, if you are disregarding these rules laid down by him, 
should expect anything else than that he would remove them from 
under your care, either by taking them to himself, or calling you to 
his bar to answer for misdirecting immortal souls. 

II. Having presented the meaning of the precept, and shown the 
solemn responsibility which it imposes on parents, I shall confine my- 
self, in the remainder of this discourse, to pointing out one of the in- 
stances in which parents violate this command of God. 

The case to which I allude is the indifference manifested by Chris- 
tian parents to the characters, morals and religious sentiments of the 
instructors of their children. Many parents act upon the principle 
that it is of no importance what may be the morals or sentiments 
entertained by a teacher, provided there is no immorality exhibited 
before the pupils, and no attempt to inculcate sentiments deemed 
erroneous. But no opinion could be more untrue, or more practically 
dangerous. The Scripture declaration, as a man " thinketh in his 
heart so is he," will be found true. His teachings and example will 
be insensibly influenced by the doctrines he holds, and there will occur 
a thousand ways in which the pupil will distinctly comprehend the 
views and feelings of the preceptor ; and these views will not have 
the less influence, from the fact that he makes no direct effort toirn press 
them upon the pupil's mind. A direct effort of this kind would put 
the learner on his guard, but the other plan allays all fear, and the 
poison silently and imperceptibly works. The child is subjected five- 
sevenths of his time to this influence, and the remaining portion to a 
different influence J no wonder, then, that the poison has gained so 



fast, that errors are fixed beyond remedy in the mind before the parent 
is aware that they exist at all. Hence, every one soliciting at your 
hands the post of instructor of your children, should be willing to 
submit his opinions and life to the most rigid scrutiny before he asks 
that so important a trust should be confided to him. It is not enough 
that he promises not to interfere with your notions of what is right, 
but that he sincerely hold those views himself. For otherwise, he 
either ignorantly promises what the laws of his mind forbid his per- 
forming, or he means to deceive you, for some sinister end, in making 
a promise he knows it is impossible to fulfill. 

The most prominent candidates for public patronage in this work of 
education in our country, of late years, are individuals and ecclesiasti- 
cal orders in the Papal Church. They are at our doors soliciting aid 
in the erection of their colleges and seminaries of learning, and asking 
Christian parents to commit their children to their hands to be educated, 
and, of course — for this is the parent's vow — to be trained up for 
God. Everywhere, throughout our land, their schools are coming 
into competition with those erected and governed by Protestants, at 
such reduction of prices, and with a zeal that manifests a desire to get 
at least a large proportion, if not an entire control, of the education of 
the country. The vows resting on you as Christian parents, make it 
obligatory that you examine carefully the claims of these instructors ; 
their capacity to impart useful knowledge ; their doctrines, sentiments 
and lives, that you may be able to judge whether they are likely to 
bring up the children of Protestant Christians "inthenuture and 
admonition of the Lord." The officers of every Christian Church, 
having the oversight of these consecrated children, are also under ob- 
ligations to make this inquiry, seeing they are directed u to watch as 
they must give an account." To this examination these guides of 
youth surely cannot object. In this country every solicitor of public 
favor and patronage expects that his claims will be fairly examined, 
and that the award will be made accordingly. Indeed, an honest 
aspirant after a responsible place will desire that the most rigid scru- 
tiny be instituted before the position is occupied. 

1. Our first inquiry is into the doctrines held by these teachers • 
that is by the Papal Church. The Christian parent, lying under a 
solemn vow, must know whether the instructor of his child holds the 
essential truths of the Christian religion. It has been generally the 
opinion of Protestants that Roman Catholics were not wrong in those 
doctrines that are fundamental in the Christian faith, but that their 
great error consisted in the load of trumpery, such as the worship of 
the Virgin Mary, and of Saints, and relics ; the doctrines of Purgatory, 
1* 



penance and auricular confession j of transubstantiation, and the adora- 
tion of the bread, which being wrought into the way of salvation as 
revealed, served to cloud the mind, and. in most cases, entirely mislead 
the worshipper from the true objects of faith. This opinion has arisen 
from the circumstance that Rome held the same symbols of faith with 
the Protestant Churches, as the Apostles and Athanasian creeds. But 
these formularies of doctrine are so brief that without explanation it 
is impossible to know what is the faith held by those professing to 
embrace them. The Apostle's creed may be adopted by every de- 
scription of errorists professing to receive the Bible, and the same is 
true of the creed of Athanasius, with the single exception of Arians, 
whose error it was designed to detect. Hence the opinion of Pro- 
testants referred to, was manifestly made up on insufficient evidence. 
We must have definitions, and more extended explanations, before we 
can be in a condition to form a judgment. 

The Papal system of doctrine was never settled until the Councii 
of Trent, which closed its sessions in 1564. Previous to this, Coun- 
cils had dealt very much in formularies, and they had defined and 
changed, affirmed and condemned, in so many different ways, that it was 
no very unusual thing for that to be rank heresy in one section of the 
Church that was orthodox in another, and opinions of every shade and 
hue were held by different teachers in that communion. The Protes- 
tant controversy compelled Rome to settle her faith, and the great and 
last General Council convened at Trent in 1545 for this purpose. 
Their decrees having been confirmed by the Pope, according to the 
doctrine of that Church, are infallible and unalterable. The explana- 
tions of doctrine given, are sufficiently extended to enable us now to 
know what is the faith of that Church, and hence an opinion may now 
be fairly made up. 

It has been thought by Protestants that if there was one doctrine 
held by the Papal Church that was entirely free from error, it was 
that of the Trinity. Yet, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, 
we find the following explanations on this subject : <; Let him, how- 
ever, who by the divine bounty believes these truths, constantly 
beseech and implore God. and the Father, who made all things out of 
nothing, and orders all tilings sweetly, who gave us power to become 
the sons of God, and who made known to us the mystery of the 
Trinity ; that, admitted, one clay, into the eternal tabernacle, he may 
be worthy to see how great is the fecundity of the Father, who con- 
templating and understanding himself begot the son like and equal to 
himself; how a love of charily in boih, entirely the same and equal, 
which is the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son. 



connects the begetting and the begotten by an eternal and indissoluble 
bond ; and that thus the essence of the Trinity is one and the distinc- 
tion of the three persons perfect." p. 27. So that a love of charity 
proceeding from the Father and the Son, is, in the Romish notion, 
the Holy Ghost. 

Concerning the eternal generation oi the Son, the same Catechism 
gives us the following as an illustration : " As the mind, in some sort 
looking into and understanding itself, forms an image of itself, which 
Theologians express by the term a . word ;" so God, as far, however, 
as we may compare human things to divine, understanding himself, 
begets the eternal word." p. 36. So far as this illustration teaches 
any thing, it is, that the Son of God is a representation of an idea in 
the mind of God. 

On the manner of Christ's birth we have this remarkable instruction 
from the same source : ' c As the rays of the sun penetrate, without 
breaking or injuring in the least, the substance of glass j after a like, 
but more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ come forth from 
his mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity, which 
immaculate and perpetual, forms the just theme of our eulogy." p. 40. 
The humanity of Christ is here denied. He is not the seed of the 
woman, and no more a descendant from Adam than was the angel that 
wrestled with Jacob, at Peniel. Now, whatever may be said of the 
orthodoxy of Rome, and the correctness of her teachings in other 
things, there can be but one opinion amongst Protestants concerning 
these views of her authorized standard; that the doctrines of the 
Trinity, and the humanity of Christ, as we hold them, are denied. 
Yet these doctrines lie at the very foundation of our whole system of 
faith ; an error here is ruinous to the whole fabric. It is true that in 
other places Rome in her teaching presents a more sound view of 
these doctrines, if we rightly understand her words, but when those 
teachings are coupled with the above authorized explanations, doubt, 
to say the least, is cast over the whole. 

There is nothing more important, however, in this inquiry into the 
opinions of the instructors of our children than what is the Rule of 
Faith held by them. The motto of Protestants since the dawn of the 
reformation has been u the Bible alone." The moment this is de- 
parted from we open the flood gate to all manner of error. The decree 
passed by the Council of Trent at its fourth session declares the Old 
and New Testaments, the Apocrypha, and traditions of the Church, to 
be of equal authority in faith and manners. The words are as follows: 
the Council " doth receive and reverence, with equal piety and vene- 
ration, all the books, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, the 



8 

same God being the author of both ; and also the aforesaid traditions, 
pertaining both to faith and manners, whether received from Christ 
himself, or dictated by the Holy Spirit and preserved in the Catholic 
Church by continual succession." Then follows a catalogue of the 
books of the Old and New Testament, amongst which are enumerated 
1 hose of the Apocrypha, after which the decree proceeds, ' : whoever 
shall not receive, as sacred and canonical, all these books, and every 
part of them, as they are commonly read in the Catholic Church, and 
are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, or shall knowingly and 
deliberately despise the aforesaid traditions, let him be accursed."* 
Do Protestant parents keep their vow to God and the Church when 
they commit their children to instructors, who not only receive a dif- 
ferent rule of faith, but are bound to curse them and their children for 
holding " the Bible alone P" 

The doctrine of Justification by faith has ever been the peculiarly 
cherished doctrine of the Protestant Church. Luther pronounced it 
" the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls." It teaches us that 
our justification is alone through the merits of Christ. The Scriptures 
teach " the just shall live by faith" — "being justified freely by hrs 
grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus " — " therefore, 
being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord 
Jesus Christ." Now hear the Council of Trent : 

Canon 11. " Whosoever shall affirm, that men are justified solely 
by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or the remission of 
sin, to the exclusion of grace and charity, which is shed abroad in 
their hearts, and inheres in them ; or that the grace by which we are 
justified is only the favor of God : let him be accursed. 

" 12. Whosoever shall affirm, that justifying faith is nothing else than 
confidence in the divine mercy, by which sins are forgiven for Christ's 
sake ; or that it is that confidence only by which we are justified : let 
him be accursed." 

" 18. Whosoever shall affirm, that it is impossible even for a justified 
man, living in a state of grace, to keep the commandments of God : let 
him be accursed." 

"24. Whosoever shall affirm, that justification received is not pre- 
served, and even increased, in the sight of God, by good works ; but that 
woiks are only the fruits and evidences of justification received, and not 
the causes of its increase: let him be accursed. 

"25. Whosoever shall affirm, that a righteous man sins m every 
good work, at least venially ; or, which is yet more intolerable, mor- 



* Cramp's Council of Trent, pp. 54, 55. 



tally ; and that he therefore deserves eternal punishment, and only for 
this reason is not condemned, that God does not impute his works to 
condemnation : let him be accursed. 

"26. Whosoever shall affirm, that the righteous ought not to expect 
and hope for everlasting reward from God for their good works, which 
are wrought in God, through his mercy and the merits of Jesus Christ, 
if they persevere to the end in well-doing and observance of the divine 
commandments: let him be accursed." 

These canons are aimed directly against protestants* Every doctrine 
here condemned .is held by every evangelical protestant denomination as 
lying at the very foundation of the plan of salvation. Whilst the doc- 
trines set forth, that man can keep the whole law of God, and that the 
righteous deserve everlasting reward for their good works, are univer- 
sally regarded by protestants as ruinous to the soul. Do Christian pa- 
rents keep their vows to God when they commit their children to in- 
structors who teach doctrines believed by the parents themselves to be 
destructive to the soul, and who curse the parents and their children for 
holding that they must depend on the merits of Christ alone for salva- 
tion? 

In the seventh session, the Council passed a Decree upon the subjecs 
of the Sacraments, from which me make the following extract : " In or- 
der to complete the exposition of the wholesome doctrine of justification, 
published in the last session by the unanimous consent of the fathers, it 
hath been deemed proper to treat of the holy sacraments of the Church, 
by which all true righteousness is at first imparted, then increased^ and 
afterwards restored, if lost," they " resolved to frame and decree these 
following canons," &c. We quote four of them. 

" 4. Whosoever shall affirm, that the sacraments of the new law are 
not necessary to salvation, but superfluous ; or, that men may obtain the 
grace of justification by faith only, without these sacraments (although 
it is granted that they are not all necessary to every individual) : let him 
be accursed. 

lC 5. Whosoever shall affirm, that the sacraments were instituted solely 
for the purpose of strengthening our faith : let him be accursed. 

u 6. Whosoever shall affirm, that the sacraments of the new law do 
not contain the grace which they signify ; or, that they do no! confer 
that grace on those who place no obstacle in its way • as if they were 
only the external signs of grace or righteousness received by faith, and 
marks of christian profession, whereby the faithful are distinguished 
from unbelievers ; let him be accursed." 

< c 8. Whosoever shall affirm, that grace is not conferred by these sa- 
craments of the new law, by their own power, (ex operc operatoj \\j\ 



10 

that faith in the divine promise is all that is necessary to obtain grace: 
let him be accursed."* 

These quotations are sufficient to show the ground-work of the Papal 
plan of salvation; the sacraments by their own power confer grace, 
thus the believer is- regenerated by baptism, united to Christ by the Eu 4 
charist, is then able to keep the ivhole law, and deserves heaven for his 
good works. A plan that is the very opposite of Christ's as revealed in 
the word of God. And if salvation is only found by embracing Christ's 
plany then the papal system, so far from teaching the essential truths o*" 
salvation,, teaches a system that will inevitably destroy the soul. If the 
question is asked, are there not true christians m that church? My an- 
swer is, I think so : but they are the children of God, not because of the 
teachings of that church, but notwithstanding those teachings. They 
are those, who, from the word of God, have gathered the system- oi 
Christ, and hold a plan of faith the opposite of that of Rome, whilst they 
still continue in her communion, instead of obeying God's command-, 
" Come out of her, my people."! 

It is not tobe supposed that a Christian parent, with the vows of God 
and the church resting upon him, would knowingly and deliberately 
place his child, for whom those vows were taken-, in the hands of those 
who were bound by their oath of allegiance to Rome to instruct them 
openly or covertly, as might best suit the circumstances, in a system that 
was ruinous- to the soul. This would call for the immediate exercise of 
discipline on the part of the church. The evil has been in a sinful in- 
difference on the subject of the opinions held by instructors. They hare 
not inquired whether they held the essential truths or not. The Papal 
church has been considered as one amongst the denominations holding 
peculiar forms and ceremonies, but not differing in the fundamentals of 
the way of salvation.. The recital of doctrines here from their own 
standards, will, we trust, be sufficient to waken an inquiry upon this 
subject, which cannot but result in the conviction that the plan of salva- 
tion drawn by Rome from the Bible , the Apocrypha, and traditions of 
the Church, is entirely different, and directly opposed to that which pro- 
testants draw from c ' the Bible alone" 

We have said nothing, in this examination, of the monstrous doctrines 
of indulgences, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the worship of the Vir- 
gin, Saints, relics, and the adoration of the wafer, all confirmed by the 
Council of Trent, because, though no one can conform to them without 
sin, they do not go into the very vitals of the way of life. Yet it must 
be matter of grave inquiry with every protestant parent, since all their 



* Buy. xiii ; 4. f Cramp's Council of Trent, pp. 124, 126, 



11 

pupils are required to assist in their religious services, whether he is per* 
forming his vow to God, whilst he permits his child to pass through 
these idolatrous services, and to have his mind filled with the hopes of 
gratifying sinful inclinations with impunity, which these doctrines foster. 

2. The question very naturally arises, how has it happened that Rome 
has become the great fountain for supplying the world with teachers of 
the young? And why is it that from her coffers are poured forth so 
many millions for the erection of Universities, colleges, seminaries for 
young ladies, free schools, and orphan houses, all over our land ? It can- 
not be because she fears that our liberal republican institutions cannot be 
maintained without our children are educated, for her own government 
is one of the purest despotisms in the world ; and it would be absurd to 
suppose she cherished republics. It cannot be because she supposes edu- 
cation essential to the progress of pure religion, according to her notion 
of it, for the children in the Ecclesiastical States, under her own civil 
sway, are kept in ignorance ; and the doctrine that " ignorance is the 
mother of devotion" originated with her. Still, there are no candidates 
for this kind of patronage in the land half so earnest and persevering as 
these. Whole ecclesiastical orders of men and women are traversing 
the country and establishing themselves in costly buildings wherever a 
favorable location can be found. A brief glance into history will 
throw some light upon this mysterious subject. 

At the time when the reformation was making its first onset, and had 
spread consternation among the Fapal ranks, ;< while the Pope experi- 
enced opposition or desertion from every side, while he had nothing to 
expect but a lingering and progressive decline, a society of men was 
formed, volunteers, full of zeal and enthusiasm, with the express purpose 
of devoting themselves exclusively to his service." This society, pleased 
with the idea of a military warfare with Satan, adopted the military title 
of the " Company of Jesus," and received the sanction of the Pope in the 
year 1540, about twenty years after the commencement of the reforma- 
tion. " They combined the clerical and monastic duties, rejected the 
monastic habit, emancipated themselves from the common devotional ex- 
ercises which consume the greater part of the time in convents," and 
from every obligation that was secondary. They devoted themselves to 
preaching, hearing confessions, and the education of youth. They im- 
mediately became the great Missionaries of the Roman Church. " In- 
struction had till then been in the hands of those men of letters, who, 
after having long addicted themselves to profane studies, fell into specu- 
lations on religious subjects, not wholly agreeable to the court of Rome, 
and ended by adopting opinions utterly reprobated by it. The Jesuits 
»ade V. their business to expel them from their post, and occupy it in 



12 

their stead. They began on a more systematic plan than had hitherto 
been pursued. They divided the schools into classes, which they taught 
from the first rudiments up to the highest branches of learning, in the 
same spirit. They paid great attention also to the moral education, and 
formed men of good conduct and manners; they were patronized by the 
civil authorities ; and, lastly, they taught gratis. When a city or a 
prince had founded a Jesuit's College, private persons needed no longer 
to be at any expense for the education of their sons. They were ex- 
pressly forbidden to ask or to receive pay or aims; their instruction was 
as gratuitous as their sermons and their masses; there was no box for 
the receipt of gifts even in their churches. Men being what they are, 
this could not fail to make the Jesuits extremely popular, especially as 
they taught with no less success than zeal," * " We see," says one of 
their own number, speaking of their success, " many robed in the purple 
of a cardinal, who were but lately seated on the benches of our schools ; 
others have attained to posts in the government of cities and of states ; 
we have trained up bishops and their councils ; even other relig 
communities have been filled from our schools." They soon obtained 
an incalculable influence by these means over the minds of men. Their 
labors were, first, to get such a control over Catholic countries as would 
secure them against the jealousy of rival orders, and their success may 
be learned from the fact, that when Ignatius Loyola, their founder and 
first General, died, in 1556, but sixteen years from their establishment, 
the company numbered thirteen provinces exclusive of the Roman. 

In 1551 they were introduced into Germany, for the purpose of 
counter-working the reformation, which threatened at that time to sweep 
the whole empire. The Emperor Ferdinand I. in the letter he address- 
ed on the subject to Loyola, expresses his conviction, that the only means 
of propping the declining cause of Catholicism in Germany was. to 
give the rising generation learned and pious Catholic teachers. Thir- 
teen Jesuits speedily repaired to Vienna, where the Emperor gave them 
a dwelling, chapel and pension, and shortly after incorporated them 
with the University, and assigned them the superintendence of it. From 
this, as a centre, they spread with almost incredible rapidity, by 
acquiring the control of the Universities, and establishing schools 
throughout Germany. " In fifteen years," says Prof. Ranke. that is 
in 1566, " their influence extended over Bavaria and Tyrol, Franconia 
and Suabia, a great part of Rhineland and Austria, and they had pen- 
etrated into Hungary, Bohemia and Moravia. This was the first 
counteracting influence the reformation in Germany received," The 



Rankers History of ihe Popcsj vol. i. p« 1 10. 



13 

same historian adds : tl The Papal theology had, as we have said, 
fallen nearly to utter decay. The Jesuits arose to revive it. Who 
were the Jesuits that first appeared in Germany ? They were Span- 
iards, Italians, Flemings; for a long time the people did not know the 
name of their order ; they called them the Spanish priests. They 
got possession of the chairs of Universities, and found pupils who 
attached themselves to their instructions." "They conquered the 
Germans on their own soil, in their very home, and wrested from 
them a portion of their own country." 

In the early part of the Reformation Protestantism made rapid 
strides in France, so that for some time the whole people seemed to 
lean towards the Protestant confession. But in 1562 a re-action took 
place growing out of measures that were strictly political. Favored 
by the state of the public mind the Jesuits obtained firm footing in 
France. Their beginning was small, for they were compelled to be 
content with colleges thrown open for their reception by a few eccle- 
siastics, their devoted partizans, in places remote from the metropolis. 
But by perseverence and court influence they obtained, in 1564, the 
privilege of instructing the youth, which was all they asked. Their 
power was soon felt throughout the kingdom, in every species of 
intrigue, so that thirty years after, an attempt having been made to 
assassinate the King, Henry IV, by one of their pupils, who con- 
fessed in his examination that he had frequently heard from the Jesuits 
that it was lawful to kill a King that was not reconciled to the Church, 
the order was suppressed in France. The sentence commanded all 
the members of the order to leave the kingdom within fourteen days, 
and assigns as the reason that they were i: seducers of the youth, dis- 
turbers of the public peace, enemies of the King and of the State." Four 
years afterwards, in 1598, the King having in the meantime been 
reconciled to the Romish Church, they were permitted to return, and 
continued under the bigotted sovereigns of that country (who were 
generally ruled by them) until 1762, when their commercial transac- 
tions and frauds having enabled the Parliament of Paris to lay their 
hands upon them, they were finally suppressed in France. 

After having held the sway over Portugal and Spain for two hun- 
dred years, they were banished the first country for their connection 
with an attempt on the King's life, in 1759; and in a few years after 
from Spain, for being concerned in a plot to dethrone the King- ; and 
such was the dread Charles had entertained of them, that when the 
work was accomplished he exclaimed : " I have conquered a new 
world." Naples and Parma immediately followed the example of 
Spain. The ambassadors of all these powers presented their accusa- 



14 

tions against the Jesuits before the Pope, and demanded the total sup- 
pression of the order. After every effort at resistance, Clement XIV. 
was compelled, on the 21st July, 1773, to pronounce the following 
sentence : 

" Inspired, as we humbly trust, by the Divine Spirit, urged by the 
duty of restoring the unanimity of the Church, convinced that the 
Company of Jesus can no longer render those services to the end of 
which it was instituted, and moved by other reasons of prudence and 
state policy which we hold locked in our own breast, we abolish and 
annul the Society of Jesus, their functions, houses, and institutions."* 

Here then is a society, or ecclesiastical order, originated for meet- 
ing the emergency produced by the reformation, and fundamentally 
adapted to meet the struggle w T ith Protestantism, pushing forward 
with an unprecedented success, and answering most perfectly the end 
of its institution, by eontroling education. Arrived at the plenitude 
of power, they become the arch-intriguers in all countries, and are 
finally suppressed by the influence, not of Protestants, but of Roman 
Catholic sovereigns, for seducing the youth, and forming conspiracies for 
the overturning of established governments. By the light thus thrown by 
history upon this order, can any one be at a loss to solve the mystery 
of their operations in our own country now ? The movements are 
precisely the same. The actors governed by the same constitutions ; 
the ends aimed at the same, as we shall see by the brief statements we 
have to make in bringing that history to the present time. 

The revolution in France, and the wars of Napoleon which suc- 
ceeded and brought the Pope and almost all Europe to his feet, utterly 
precluded for the time any action on the part of the Papacy. The 
supremacy was gone, and the Pope became a prisoner of the Emperor 
in the palace of Fontainbleau. But no sooner had the tide turned 
and the allies became the victors, than the grasping ambition of the 
pontiff revived. Pius VII. had scarcely reached Rome on his return 
from his prison before the decree reviving the Order of Jesuits, prop- 
erly termed the " Janisaries of the Pope," was issued, in 1814. But 
thirty years have passed, and they are swarming in every Catholic 
country of Europe, have crept back in the face of the decree against 
them in France, and are building their colleges in England, Switzer- 
land and the United States, and by the education of youth again counter- 
working Protestantism. The same struggles are again renewed in 
France and Switzerland, and in the latter country blood has already 
been shed. To control the countries and mould their governments to 



* Contiouazione degji ApaaU, torn, Xiy ? part ii, p. 107. Quoted by Ranke. 



15 

suit their own purposes, and reduce the whole to the spiritual domina- 
tion of the Pope, is the end for which their order was orignated ; for 
which when suppressed it was revived; and consequently, for which 
it now lives and acts. That they will involve this land in troubles 
and conflicts is just as certain as that like causes produce like effects. 
Where is the American parent, let alone the Christian under vows, 
who, knowing these facts, will turn over his child to be trained up by 
men who will use him afterwards, as their tool, to ruin the liberty, 
civil and religious, which our fathers transmitted, a priceless boon, 
to us? 

3. The character of the instruction imparted in their schools has 
nothing in it giving them a peculiar claim to popular favor, unless it 
be in their prices. At the origin of their order, the new Protestant 
Universities had become popular through the celebrity of the great 
men who were connected with them, and they were ambitious of 
rivalling their popularity. " The education of that timebeing a purely 
learned one, rested exclusively on the study of the languages of 
antiquity. These the Jesuits cultivated with great ardor, and in a 
short time had among them teachers who might claim to be ranked 
among the restorers of learning." Upon the reputation of their 
names, and the popularity their institutions then acquired, the order 
has lived since its restoration, without producing a single name above 
mediocrity. The course of training was long and the studies few, 
and hence their modes of laborious drilling being carried through, 
they made thorough scholars in the branches taught. Times have 
changed, the world become utilitarian, whilst their system of instruc- 
tion has remained the same. The time has been shortened for the 
whole college course, and the subjects of study greatly increased. 
Hence their method no longer succeeds in making even good scholars 
in the ancient languages. The modern improvements in mathematics 
they do not attempt. Philosophy, natural, moral, and mental, is studied 
very superficially, and the physical sciences, as chemistry, mineralogy, 
and geology not at all. History is to them a dangerous subject, espe- 
cially when the sons of Protestants are the pupils, and is therefore 
skimmed, in a compend prepared by Roman hands. The rights of 
man, and of conscience, enlightened views of civil government, form 
no part of their course. The consequence is, that their Universities, 
whilst conferring the highest honors, scarcely rise above the grammar 
schools of our country. A graduate of their Universities is unable 
to enter the Junior class at Princeton, Yale, or any of the more re- 
spectable Protestant colleges of our land. 

The special candidates for patronage in the intruction of your 



16 

daughters are the orders of the Urselines, the Sisters of Charity, the 
Visitandines and the Sacred Heart ; orders shown by Prof. Michelet, 
in his late work, to he peculiarly under the Spiritual direction of the 
Jesuits, and the last a creation of their own, composed of women en- 
thusiastically engaged in the work to which they have vowed, and 
blindly obedient to the will of their confessors and spiritual guides. 
They are satisfied of the infallible truth of the destructive doctrines 
we have rehearsed, and sure that the curse of God rests on the pa- 
rents of the children they are educating, and hence bound, by every 
feeling of benevolence, to separate the child from the baneful influence 
of the parent and infuse their own dogmas into her mind. What is a 
promise not to interfere with your child's religion worth under such 
circumstances ? How long think you would they continue their self- 
denying labors in a Protestant community, if they were assured the 
result must be the making of all their pupils firm and decided Protes- 
tant Christians ? Yet this is the end you are bound by your vow to 
seek for in an instructor for the child God has committed to you. 

The instruction given in these Convents and Seminaries is liable to 
all the objections belonging to the Jesuit schools. The teachers in 
three-fourths of the cases are unqualified for their work ; and that 
lack entails itself ; for each succeeding generation of teachers was 
taught by the one preceding it. A modern language or two may be 
well taught, for the teachers are mostly foreigners ; the English rudi- 
ments may also be pretty correctly imparted ; and some ornamental, 
showy branches thrown over the whole to hide its meagreness. But 
the things that form the character, and make useful, intelligent wives 
and mothers, fitted for the stations they are about to occupy in society, 
will be wholly wanting, for the simple reason that they are things no 
cloistered nun can from experience know, and hence can never impart. 

Whatever may have been the difficulties in former times in this 
community in finding suitable schools conducted on strictly Protestant 
Christian principles, no such difficulties now exist. Seminaries, free 
from any real objection, and possessing greatly superior claims to 
your patronage, both on the ground of instruction and instructors, are 
now sufficiently numerous. Hence, no necessity can any longer be 
pleaded as an excuse for violating the precept of the text, and the vow 
made by parents to God and the Church. The violation must be ae* 
counted willful, or the result of imperfect information. 

III. It will be well, in closing this subject, to look at the conse- 
quences that result from the violation of this precept, 

1. God's goodness forbids the supposition that he would, in any 
case, lay burdens upon the members of his Church, that were un« 



17 

necessary. His wisdom equally forbids the supposition that any duty 
he has enjoined upon his children can be violated with impunity. He 
knows what is in man, and has framed his government and all his laws 
with reference to this end. Our own experience fully confirms the 
truth, that on the training depends the character and after life of the 
child, and hence reason assents to the propriety and necessity of the 
precept, and leads us to look for disastrous consequences if it is neg- 
lected. 

2. The fulfillment of the solemn vow taken by Christian parents 
upon the baptism of their children, is the condition upon which rests 
the blessings contained in God's covenant to Abraham : " I will be a 
God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." — -*' The children of thy 
servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before 
thee." — " He that feareth the Lord, his seed shall inherit the earth." 
These covenant blessings have no mysterious sense, they will be 
realized so certainly as covenant is kept with God. But if you break 
covenant, failing in the performance of your vow, you lose all claim 
to the promised good. Your children lose the advantages of these 
promises through your sin. Thus, parents sin not alone, but by cast- 
ing off their duty to God, He casts their children off from His cove- 
nant, and generations unborn feel the effects of their neglect of duty. 
O parents ! have mercy upon your children — be not destitute of 
natural affection — secure to them, as you may, God's covenant bless- 
ings, that He may be their Father and their God. 

3. Another consequence is found in the utter ruin of family peace. 
The domestic circle is God's appointed refuge from the toils and per- 
plexities and sorrows of life. The domestic altar is the dearest and 
sweetest shrine at which man's offerings are made ; where those most 
loved on earth present together their morning and evening vows to a 
God of love. But trust your sons and daughters to those who are 
under vows to estrange them from you and your religion, and who 
are conscientious in performing their vows, because they believe they 
will do God and your children service ; and your domestic peace is 
gone. There will be secrets cherished in the breast of your child that 
he will not reveal to you, and your altar will be an abomination in his 
sight. Your home will be filled with discord, and the God of your 
fathers will be forsaken. 

4. By indifference to this precept, and consequently committing your 
children. to the commissioned emissaries of the Roman Church, you 
give your patronage, your money, and what is worse, the energies of 
your own offspring, to build up a politico -religious system, designed 
to pull down the institutions of freedom under which you live. Tha 



18 

head of that Church is a temporal prince, ruling three millions of 
subjects ; the form of government absolute monarchy ; he claims 
universal spiritual empire, and uses the spiritual to build up and 
extend the temporal. His most efficient agents are the Jesuits, and 
their mode of accomplishing his purposes the education of youth. By 
this method they subdued Germany, France, a large part of Switzer- 
land, and reigned with despotic sway for two hundred years in Italy? 
Spain, and Portugal. They have always advanced by attaching the 
youth of the country to their cause, and selecting the most talented to 
fill their own ranks as co-workers. The scheme is wise, the means 
"well adapted to the end, and the whole machinery is in operation in 
your midst ; and you give your sons and daughters into their embrace ! 
If, before your head is silvered over and laid in the grave, you find 
them destroying the temple of liberty and of your God, you need not 
feel surprised ; — it is a consequence invoked by your own acts. 

5. Lastly, the destruction of the souls of your children, unless God's 
grace prevent, is a consequence. You place them under influences 
where the light of truth will be shut out from their minds, and a 
false system presented for their belief; if they receive it, they have 
embraced an error that destroys the soul ; if they reject it, you have 
seared their consciences by exposing them to a system of superstition 
and idolatry, bearing the name of the Christian religion, and thereby 
tempting them to reject the Bible and all religion in their hearts. The 
absurdities of the Papal faith made Deists of Voltaire and his com- 
panions, and has made infidels of hundreds wearing the priestly garb 
this day in their own communion, and such are its natural tendencies. 
Let these consequences be fairly examined ; see if they do not 
legitimately flow from the evil held up to your minds to-day, and may 
God enable you to act aright in view of the responsibility he has laid 
upon you. 



A 

REVIEW 

OF THE 

SERMON BY DR. POTTS, 

GN THE 

DANGERS OF JESUIT INSTRUCTION, 

PREACHED AT 

THE SECOND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, ST, LOUIS, 
SEPTEMBER 25th. 1845. 

BY ORESTES A. BROWNSON. 



The author of this sermon, we presume, from it's doctrine, and tone, 
is a Presbyterian mintster, and most likely pastor of the church at which- 
it was preached. We know nothing of him except what the ser- 
mon itself tells us. From that we gather that he stands high in his 
own estimation, has some earnestness and zeal, but is rather deficient in 
theological and historical knowledge, as well as in the meekness and 
sweetness of the Christian temper. 

The sermon is from Eph. vi. 4, — "Bring them up in the nurtureand 
admonition of the Lord," or, as the Catholic version has it, u in the dis- 
cipline and correction of the Lord ;" and is designed to set forth the 
solemn obligations of Christian parents to give their children a truly 
Christian education, and to point out one remarkable instance in which 
they violate these obligations. 

" The text," he says, " is an apostolic precept given to those who 
hold in the Church of Christ the important and responsible relation of 
parents. The Church, consequently, requires, in every case in which 
the Sacrament of Baptism is administered to a child, that the parents 
bring themselves under a solemn obligation to ' endeavor, by all the 
means of God's appointment, to bring up their child in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord.' 



il As in the administration of this Sacrament in the case of an adult, 
he gives himself up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness 
of life; so parents, in presenting their children, make a formal surren- 
der of them to God, and obligate themselves, as guardians and instruct- 
ors appointed for the express purpose, to bring them up as God's sons 
and daughters. For their diligence and faithfulness in the discharge of 
this duty every parent is to answer, first to the Church officers, whose 
duty it is to see to the fulfillment of the vows publicly made in the Church, 
and secondly, to the great Judge of quick and dead. Hence arises the 
double duty, that officers should see to it that the Church is fully in- 
structed in reference to the nature of this covenant engagement,, and that 
parents carefully consider the meaning of the vow that rests upon them." 

- P . i. 

The inquiry might arise here, Who are these a Church, officers "? 
and, especially, who is to see to it that they rightly instruct, or do not 
misinstruct, the Church ? The Church officers instruct the Church, 
but who instructs and appoints the Church officers ? The earth stands 
on the turtle ; but what does the turtle stand on? If the sermon reaches 
a second edition, we hope *he author will condescend to enlighten us on 
this point. 

The explanation of the precept of the text, though it overlooks the 
immediate sense intended by the blessed Apostle, is well enough.. The 
general duty of Christian parents to educate their children in a Christian 
manner is set forth with tolerable clearness- It is a solemn duty, and 
one which it is to-be deeply lamented, parents too often, and too fatally 
neglect. The parent who brings his child to the Sacrament of Baptism, 
incurs a solemn obligation to do all in his power to bring him up in a 
truly Christian manner ; and if he do not, and the child through that 
neglect be lost, terrible will be the account he will one day be called upon 
to settle with his Maker and his Judge. But the main design, and much 
the larger part, of this sermon is devoted to pointing " out one of the in- 
stances in which parents violate this command J' 

" The case," the author says, "to which I allude, is the indifference 
manifested by Christian parents to the characters, morals, and religious 
sentiments of the instructors of their children. Many parents act upon 
the principle, that it is of no importance what may be the morals or sen- 
timents entertained by a teacher, provided there is no immorality exhib- 
ited before the pupils, and no attempt to inculcate sentiments deemed er- 
roneous. But no opinion could be more untrue, or more practically 
dangerous. The Scripture declaration, as a man ' thinketh in his heart 
so is he,' will be found true. His teachings and example will be insen- 
sibly influenced by the doctrines he holds, and there will occur a thous- 
and ways in which the pupil will distinctly comprehend the views and 
feelings of the preceptor ; and these views will not have the less influ- 
ence, from the fact that he makes no direct effort to impress them upon 
the pupil's mind. A direct effort of this kind would put the learner on 



21 

his guard ; but the other plan allays all fear, and the poison silently and 
imperceptibly works. The child is subjected five-sevenths of his time 
to this influence, and the remaining portion to a different influence ; no 
wonder, then, that the poison has gained so fast, that errors are fixed 
beyond remedy in the mind before the parent is aware that they exist at 
all. Hence, every one soliciting at your hands the post of instructor of 
your children should be willing to submit his opinions and life to the 
most rigid scrutiny, before he asks that so important a trust should be 
confided to him." — pp. 4, 5. 

The principle laid down here, we regard as a sound one. We should 
find it extremely difficult to bring ourselves to intrust the education of 
our children to instructors we held to be unsound in the faith. There is 
no torture we would not endure sooner than trust them to the care of 
Presbyterian teachers, even in matters but remotely connected with faith 
and morals. We agree entirely with Dr. Potts in the principle he lays 
down, and are quite certain, that, if the Americans generally would 
adopt it, and act upon it, there would soon be an end of that monopoly 
of education throughout the United States, which has hitherto been 
enjoyed by Presbyterians and Calvinistic Congregationalists. The 
great majority of the American people are anti-Calvinistic, and if they 
were not shamefully indifferent to the doctrines entertained by those they 
employ as instructors, we should not sec, as is even yet the fact, the 
greater part of our colleges, academies, and literary institutions under 
Calvinistic control. 

But, if we agree with Dr. Potts in the principle he lays down, we are 
far from agreeing with him in the application he makes of it. From the 
fact that parents are bound to bring up their children in the discipline 
and correction of the Lord, he infers that they are bound not to intrust 
them to Catholic instructors. But this is a plain nan sequiiur, for none 
but Catholic instructors do, or can, impart a truly Christian education. 
He would also infer from the same premises, that Christian parents can 
in conscience employ none but Presbyterian educators, which is another 
non sequitur. Educators cannot impart what they have not j and Pres- 
byterians must be Christians, before they can give a Christian education. 
That they are not Christians now, we have a right to say ; since, in a re- 
cent act of their general assembly, asserting the invalidity of Catholic 
baptism, they have unchristened themselves. Men are made Christians 
in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Presbyterians have no baptism but 
that which they derived from the Catholic Church, and their title to the 
Christian name rests on the validity of that baptism. They have de- 
clared that baptism invalid. Consequently, according to their own de- 
claration, they have always been, and are, a set of unbaptized—Prnfo/- 
terians, and therefore completely out of the pale of Christendom. Evi- 



dently, then, if Christian parents are bound to give their children a 
Christian education, they must not employ Presbyterian instructors. 

Dr. Potts asserts that Catholic individuals and ecclesiastical orders are 
at the doors of Protestants, "asking Christian parents to commit their 
children to their hands to be educated, and, of course, — for this is the pa- 
rent's vow, — to be trained up for God." — p. 5. This, if so, is no doubt 
horrible, and not to be tolerated ; for we suppose Protestants are not at 
liberty to refuse the request. But we are inclined to think he labors 
under a slight mistake. We are sure the Catholics do not solicit Protes- 
tants to intrust them with the education of their children. We establish 
schools for our own children, that we may discharge the duty the 
preacher is laboring to enforce ; and it can be no sin in us to request 
Catholic parents to send their children to Catholic schools. We do not 
request Protestants to send their children to our schools 5 we are not par- 
ticularly desirous of receiving them, and some of our colleges will not 
receive them at all. It is a favor we eonfer on Protestants, when we 
admit their sons and daughters into our schools, for which they should 
thank us, both for their own sake and their children's sake, not abuse us. 

We think also the preacher is ungenerous in objecting to our schools 
because they furnish education at "reduced prices." This objection 
comes with an ill grace from the party that claims to be the especial 
friends of education, and the founders of free schools. That our schools 
give a better education, and at a less expense than Protestant schools, we 
do not question ; for our instructors are for the most part vowed to pov- 
erty, and devoted to the work of education, not for the love of money> 
but for the love of God. Education is with them a religious vocation. 
They are men and women dead to the w r orld, and alive only to God, 
and no doubt they have special graces from Almighty God for the work 
to which he calls them. They are thus enabled to educate better than 
Protestants can, whatever their zeal, diligence, learning, or natural 
ability; as they have no expensive families or position to maintain, 
they can educate much cheaper than Protestants can. This sufficiently 
accounts for the excellence and cheapness of our schools, and for their 
ability to compete more than successfully, wherever established, with 
Protestant schools. But this surely implies no fault on our part, and can 
be no ground for condemning us or our school's. 

But the reduced prices at which our schools furnish education is not 
the only objection the preacher brings against them. He thinks the 
Christian parent cannot send his children to our schools, because Catho- 
lic instructors are not sound in the faith. He proceeds, therefore, to 
set forth wherein Catholics have not the essential Christian faith. If 
Catholics do not hold the essential truths of the Christian religion, pa- 






23 

rents undoubtedly cannot, with a safe conscience, commit their children 
to their care. No parent can safely trust his children to an -infidel, ora 
misbelieving instructor. So far, we agree with Dr. Potts. But this 
question as to the orthodoxy of Catholics is a somewhat delicate question. 
It is simply, Does the Catholic Church hold and teach the true Christian 
faith ? 

Now, it is undeniable that we cannot decide this question, unless we 
have some standard, or criterion of orthodoxy. What is this criterion? 
By what standard does the zealous Doctor propose to try the Catholic 
faith ? By the Bible? Well, by the Bible as he understands it, or as 
Catholics understand it? If as Catholics understand it, then he must 
concede the orthodoxy of Catholicity ; for the Catholic faith is au- 
thorized by the Catholic understanding of the Bible. But will he say 
as he himself understands it? But whence does it follow that Dr. Potts, 
who preaches at the Second Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, under- 
stands the Bible better than the Catholic? Why, are we to say, that the 
Catholic faith is heterodox, because it does not agree with his understand- 
ing of the word of God ? Is he infallible? Does he pretend it ? Then 
how settle the question, whether his or the Catholic's understanding of 
the Bible be the true understanding? 

" But take the Bible itself; neither your understanding of it, nor 
mine, — but the Bible, the precious Bible, the very word of God itself." 
With all my heart. But the Bible is nothing to us, unless we attach 
some meaning to it : and if we attach a false meaning to it, then what 
we take to be the Bible is not the Bible. We do not take the Bible un- 
less we take it in God's sense, — in the sense intended by the Holy Ghost 
who dictated it. How shall we ascertain this sense ? 

But the good Doctor is troubled with no questions of this sort. The 
earth rests on the turtle, and it does not occur to him to ask what the 
turtle stands on. We should not be over-curious, and no Christian ever 
allows himself to ask impertinent questions. So he tacitly assumes his 
own infallibility, that the turtle stands on his own feet, — for what else 
should a turtle stand on ? — and proceeds to try the Catholic faith. 

" Our first inquiry is into the doctrines held by these teachers ; 
that is, by the Papal Church. The Christian parent, lying under a 
solemn vow, must know whether the instructor of his child holds the 
essential truths of the Christian religion. It has been generally the 
opinion of Protestants that Roman Catholics were not wrong in those 
doctrines that are fundamental in the Christian faith, but that their 
great error consisted in the load of trumpery, such as the worship of 
the Virgin Mary, and of saints and relics ; the doctrines of purga- 
tory, penance, and auricular confession ; of transubstantiation, and the 
adoration of the bread ; which, being wrought into the way of salva- 
tion as revealed, served to cloud the mind, and, in most cases, entirely 



24 

mislead the worshipper from the true objects of faith. This opinion 
has risen from the circumstance, that Rome held the same symbols of 
faith with the Protestant Churches, as the Apostles' and Athanasian 
creeds. But these formularies of doctrine are so brief, that without 
explanation it is impossible to know what is the faith held by those 
professing to embrace them. The Apostles' creed may be adopted 
by every description of errorists professing to receive the Bible ; 
and the same is true of the creed of Athanasius, with the single ex- 
ception of Arians, whose error it was designed to detect. Hence, 
the opinion of Protestants referred to, was manifestly made up on 
sufficient evidence." — pp. 5, 6. 

This is a beautiful extract. So Protestants have hitherto been 
mistaken as to the real character of the Church. Well, there is some 
comfort in that. If they have heretofore erred, it is certain they are 
not infallible, and may therefore err again. Drowning men will catch 
at straws. So, since it is admitted Protestants may err, we will con- 
clude it is barely possible they do err, when they deny that the 
Church believes and teaches " the essential truths of the Christian 
religion." p 

But the question of the criterion or standard still comes up. By 
what authority does our Presbyterian friend distinguish between the 
essential truths of the Christian religion, and the " trumpery" with 
which they are loaded ? This question continually haunts us, and, 
like Banquo's ghost, " will not down at the bidding." We are even 
anxious to cast off all " trumpery ;" but you must prove to us that 
what you require us to cast off is trumpery, before we can consent to 
cast it off. What is the authority for saying this or that is trumpery ? 
The Bible ? That answer will not suffice ; because the moment that 
is introduced, the question comes up, What is the true sense of the 
Bible? How determine that? By private judgment? But I have 
private judgment as well as you. If I am required to submit my 
private judgment to yours, the right of private judgment is denied, 
and then you are as badly off as I. Moreover, our private judg- 
ments clash. You call some things trumpery which I revere as 
sacred. If the right of private judgment is admitted, you cannot be 
required to submit your private judgment to mine, nor 1 mine to yours. 
Where is the umpire to decide between us ? The Presbyterian 
General Assembly ? But, at the very worst, the authority of the 
Catholic Church is equal to the authority of the Presbyterian Assem- 
bly ; why, then, shall I submit to the Assembly rather than to the 
Church ? As a prudent man, how can I do so ? Your Assembly i3 
quite young and inexperienced. It represents a sect born only the 
other day, and which includes at best only a small portion — a very 
small portion — of those who profess to be Christians, and they no 



25 

prodigies for their intelligence or their amiability. Who has given 
them authority to teach? What, in fact, is their authority, making 
all you can of it, before the Catholic Church, which now embraces, 
and which has embraced from the times of the Apostles, the over- 
whelming majority of all who profess, or have professed, the Christian 
religion, and from which you have pilfered all the Christianity you 
have ? To exchange the authority of the Catholic Church for that of 
the Presbyterian Church, would be like Glaucus exchanging his 
golden armor for the brazen armor of Diomed. Sure we are we 
should get only brass in return. No, no, most excellent Doctor, we 
cannot make so foolish an exchange. You must bring me higher 
authority than that of the Presbyterian Assembly, especially since it 
has unchristened itself, before its decision will suffice for determining 
what are the essential truths of the Christian religion, and what is 
mere " trumpery." 

For our part, we shrink from calling- the devotion Catholics pay to 
the blessed Virgin and the saints by so harsh a word as " trumpery." 
To brand with that name the uniform practice of the great mass of 
professed Christians for eighteen centuries, including the greatest, 
best, and holiest men and women that have ever lived, requires, to 
say the least, very respectable authority, and is not to be done lightly. 
Dr. Potts knows perfectly well that Catholics pay supreme worship 
to God alone, and that they are strictly forbidden by their religion to 
give that to a creature which is due only to God. We honor the 
blessed Virgin, w r e admit ; for the angel Gabriel honored her, when 
he saluted her ;i full of grace j" for God himself honored her, when 
he chose to become her son, and to love and obey her as his mother ; 
and we cannot believe it wrong for us to honor whom God and his 
holy angels honor. Dr. Potts, doubtless, professes to believe that 
Jesus Christ w r as both God and man, two distinct natures in one per- 
son, — that he was truly born of the Virgin Mary, and that she was 
literally and truly his mother, as much so as any woman is the mother 
of her son. If so, he must believe that she is still his mother, and 
that our blessed Lord still loves and honors her as such. If she is 
still his mother, if he still loves and honors her, he cannot regard it as 
" trumpery" that we, too, love and honor her. Would our Presby- 
terian friend regard it as a slight to himself, if such w T ere our esteem 
for him that we loved and honored his mother for his sake ? Would 
he regard our disrespect of his mother as a proof of our love and 
esteem of him ? If he is not a bad son, he would be more offended 
at our want of respect to his mother than at our want of respect for 
himself, and would resent it quicker and more deeply. Was our 
3 



26 

blessed Lord not a good son ? Why, then, tell us it is « trumpery" 
for us to honor his Virgin Mother ? Alas ! how little does our Pres- 
byterian minister know of the sublime mystery of the Incarnation ! 
-How much does he lose by his ignorance of the exquisite tenderness 
and grace of that devotion which Catholics pay to the Mother of our 
Lord 5 who by the Holy Ghost declared that henceforth all nations 
should call her " Blessed !" — St. Luke i. 48. 

Nor are we willing to regard it as «' trumpery" to honor the saints. 
We have always supposed that the saints have honor in heaven, that 
God himself loves and honors every saint ; that to be loved and 
honored of God is included in the reward of sanctity. May I not 
love and honor whom God loves and honors ? If we love God, will 
not our hearts overflow with love to all that are dear to God ? And 
who are dearer to God than the saints who have washed their robes 
white in the blood of the Lamb, who have borne the cross here 
below, fought the good fight, won the victory, and now sing their 
triumph in songs of benediction and joy before the throne of God 
himself? May we publicly assemble to honor the memory of the 
statesman, the patriot, and the hero, stained, perhaps, with a thousand 
vices and crimes ; and yet must not honor the saint whose life was 
fragrant with divine grace, and whose footsteps have hallowed the 
earth ? Or is our crime in the fact, that we believe that the saint still 
lives, and that there is a blessed communion of saints, including the 
saints above and the saints below, binding us altogether as one body, 
united to God as the soul ? May we request the suffrages of those 
we love, who are still in the flesh, and not the suffrages of those who 
are released from their bondage, and are now in the very presence of 
God ? Has the departed saint lost a portion of his faculties, or has 
his heart become callous to the wants of those for whom, when he 
was in the flesh, he would willingly die ? O, call not the devotion 
we pay to the saints, the interest we beg in their prayers, " trum- 
pery !" You know not what you say ; and may the saints pray God 
to forgive you for blaspheming him in them ! 

We do not worship " relics." We regard and honor them for 
what they represent, or the worth to which they are related. They 
are memorials we value and treasure up. Has Dr. Potts never a 
memorial of a dear friend, now departed, with which he would not 
willingly part? Is that picture of his ever honored mother, which 
the pious son preserves with so much care, or that locket, which was 
her mothers, the pious daughter prizes so highly, mere trumpery ? 
The New Englander makes his pilgrimage to the rock on which our 
forefathers landed, and the descendants of the Pilgrims, when erecting 



27 

in the old town of Plymouth, Pilgrim Hall, place a fragment of that 
rock in its walls. The patriot feels rich in the cane, snuff-box, or 
paper cutter, made from the wood of " Old Ironsides," and we saw 
but a few days since that the representative of our Government in 
Peru had sent to the National Institute at Washington, a fragment of 
the flag of Pizarro, together with one or two other valued relics. We 
go into our State House, and we see old muskets, swords, a headless 
drum, and other curious relics of the early Indian wars or of the 
Revolution, preserved with great care. All this is proper, and is 
commended by even the sternest of the Puritan race. But it is all 
" trumpery" to preserve with respect the relics of a saint of God, 
one whose presence blessed the race of men, and who has been 
crowned in heaven ! We may preserve with affectionate care the 
coat of Washington, or visit with reverential feeling the room where 
Voltaire penned his blasphemy, or the bed where he slept after hav- 
ing reviled the religion of God; but it is all "trumpery," if the 
pious Christian preserves the sacred tunic worn by his Lord when he 
tabernacled with men, or finds his devotion quickened on beholding 
it. It is only the relics of those dear to God, who followed him in 
humility and all fidelity, who, by his grace, won immortal victories 
over the world, the flesh and the devil, who came off more than con- 
querors through him who loved them ; it is only the sacred relics of 
such as these it is offensive to God that we should preserve, or " trum- 
pery" that we should respect for the sake of the worth to which they 
are related. The lover may wear the picture of his mistress next 
his heart, and poets will sing his praise, and romancers immortalize 
him ; but if I wear next to mine the image of the Virgin Mother of 
my God, whose heart was transfixed with a sword of grief, as she 
saw her divine Son suffer and die that I might have life and joy, it is 
all "trumpery." You may fill your houses andgrounds with statues 
of heathen gods and goddesses, naked dancing girls, and wild bac- 
chantes, or hang round your rooms the pictures of bandits, cut- 
throats, and villains ; but if I place in my study, or the Church 
places upon her altar, the image of the Crucifixion, or if in my de- 
votions I kneel before the cross, or the image of the Queen of Saints, 
it is all " trumpery," besotted superstition, debasing idolatry ! O 
miserable Protestantism, thou wert born of contradictions ; thou 
stealest away the brains and petrifiest the hearts of thy votaries ! 
The fatal cup of Circe wrought not more frightful transformations in 
the companions of Ulysses, than thou dost in those who drink from 
thine. 

The doctrines of purgatory, penance, and transubstantiation we 



28 

pass over for the present ; but the charge that Catholics adore * the 
bread," even Dr. Potts must be aware is not true, — not true, even if 
it were possible for us to be mistaken in the Catholic doctrine of 
trans ubstantiation . We do not adore the bread, for we do not believe 
there is any bread there. What we adore is not what we see with 
our eyes, what we detect with any of our senses, but our blessed 
Lord himself, whom we believe to be, not represented, but concealed 
under the appearance of bread and wine. Our adoration is intended 
for God, for the Incarnate God, — is directed to him, and is adoration 
of him, even if he be not present in the manner we believe. Yet it 
is not strange that Protestants, who regard themselves ns the more 
enlightened portion of mankind, since they believe Jesus Christ is 
represented by a piece of bread, should suppose that Catholics must 
believe him to be bread ; for to believe him to be bread is, after all, 
not so far removed from believing that bread represents him as some 
may imagine. 

But here is another curious extract : 

" The Papal system of doctrine was never settled until the Council 
of Trent, which closed its sessions in 1564. Previous to this. Coun- 
cils had dealt very much in formularies, and they had defined and 
changed, affirmed and condemned in so many different ways, that it 
was no very unusual thing for that to be rank heresy in one section of 
the Church that was orthodox in another, and opinions of every shade 
and hue were held by different teachers in that communion. The 
Protestant controversy compelled Rome to settle her faith ; and the 
great and last general Council convened at Trent in 1545 for this 
purpose. Their decrees, having been confirmed by the Pope, ac- 
cording to the doctrine of that Church, are infallible and unaltera- 
ble."— p. 6. 

This is easily said, but not easily proved. That heresies have 
arisen in the Church, both before Luther and since, nobody denies ; 
but that they have ever been permitted in the Church, by any portion 
of the Church, is not true. The faith of the Church is always and 
everywhere the same ; and never have individuals in one age or one 
country been authorized to hold what in another age or country has 
been accounted heretical. No doubt, Protestantism would delight to 
find that the Church had contradicted herself; but this, though often 
asserted, has never been made out, and never can be. The faith of 
the Church is that which the Church through her pastors teaches 
authoritatively, or commands her children to believe ; and she always 
and everywhere has commanded one and the same faith. It is in vain 
Protestants assert the contrary. They have never succeeded, and 
never can succeed, in adducing a single instance which impugns this 
statement. The holy Council of Trent made not the least alteration 



in the faith. It simply defined it more fully on certain points than it 
had been before, repeated several former definitions which had been 
controverted, and condemned the new heresies which had arisen. 
To say that the Catholic faith was not settled till the Council closed 
its sessions, in 1564, betrays either an ignorance or a recklessness 
which is by no means creditable to him who says so. 
But here is something worse yet : 

" It has been thought by Protestants, that, if there was one doc- 
trine held by the Papal Church that was entirely free from error, it 
was that of the Trinity. Yet, in the Catechism of the Council of 
Trent, we find the following explanations on this subject : — ' Let him, 
however, who by the divine bounty believes these truths, constantly 
beseech and implore God, and the Father, who made all things out of 
nothing, and orders all things sweetly, who gave us power to become 
the sons of God, and who made known to us the mystery of the 
Trinity, that, admitted one day, into the eternal tabernacles, he may be 
worthy to see how great is the fecundity of the Father, who, contem- 
plating and understanding himself, begot the Son like and equal to 
himself ; how a love of charity in both, entirely the same and equal, 
which is the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, 
connects the begetting and the begotten by an eternal and indissoluble 
bond 5 and that thus the essence of the Trinity is one, and the dis- 
tinction of the three persons perfect.' — p. 27. So that a love of 
charity, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is, in the Romish 
notion, the Holy Ghost. 

"Concerning the eternal generation of the Son, the same Cate- 
chism gives us the following as an illustration : — ' As the mind, in 
some sort looking into and understanding itself, forms an image of 
itself, which theologians express by the term word, so God, as far, 
however, as we may compare human things to divine, understanding 
himself, begets the eternal word.' — p. 36. So far as this illustration 
teaches anything, it is, that the Son of God is a representation of an 
idea in the mind of God. 

" On the manner of Christ's birth we have this remarkable in- 
struction from the same source : — c As the rays of the sun penetrate, 
without breaking or injuring in the least, the substance of glass ; 
after a like, but more incomprehensible manner, did Jesus Christ 
come forth from his mother's womb without injury to her maternal 
virginity, which, immaculate and perpetual, forms the just theme of 
our eulogy.' — p. 40. The humanity of Christ is here denied. Fie 
is not the seed of the woman, and no more a descendant from Adam 
than was the angel that wrestled with Jacob at Peniel. Now, what- 
ever may be said of the orthodoxy of Rome, and the correctness of 
her teachings in other things, there can be but one opinion amongst 
Protestants concerning these views of her authorized standard ; that 
the doctrines of the Trinity and the humanity of Christ, as we hold 
them, are denied." — pp. 6, 7. 

The objection to the first extract is, that the Holy Ghost is said to 
>e the " love of charity," charitatis amor, — but why this is objec- 
3* 



tionable the preacher does not tell us, and we do not know. The 
Father loves the Son with an eternal and infinite love, and the Son 
loves the Father with an eternal and infinite love, and from their 
mutual love proceeds infinite and Eternal Love, which is the Holy 
Ghost. This love is termed amor chariiatis, because theologians dis- 
tinguish several kinds of love J and the highest, purest, and most 
perfect love is what they term the " love of charity." The word 
charity does not, as our learned preacher seems to imagine, express 
the object of the love, but its quality, and determines the love in 
question to be that love which is termed charity, not some other kind 
of love, as, for instance, amor concupiscentitz, or amor amicitice. The 
Catechism merely terms the Holy Ghost, in plain English, Charity, 
or most perfect love, proceeding from the charity or most perfect love 
of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for the Father. This is the 
worst that can be made of it. But what is there objectionable in this ? 
Does not the Apostle St. John (1 St. John iv. 16) say Deus charitas 
est, or as the Protestant version has it, " God is love ?" If the blessed 
Apostle calls God charity, or love, why may not the Catechism call 
the Holy Ghost, who is God, also charity or love ? 

Does our Presbyterian minister fancy that he sees in the assertion, 
chariiatis amor qui Spiritus Sanctus est, an attack on the personality, 
or, indeed, the substantiality, of the Holy Ghost ? He must bear in 
mind, first, that, in the sentence he quotes, the Catechism is not de- 
fining nor even giving a general statement of the Mystery of the 
Holy Trinity ; but in the paragraph from which it is taken is giving 
a caution against subtle speculations concerning this mystery, teaching 
that the words in which it is expressed are to be religiously observed, 
and admonishing us to pray diligently that we may be found worthy 
at last, when admitted into the eternal tabernacles, to see and under- 
stand what here we must believe on the authority of God, without 
seeking too curiously to ascertain how or why it is that God exists in 
unity of essence and trinity of persons. And in the second place, he 
must bear in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is to be re- 
ceived by faith, the Catechism here presupposes, because it had in the 
previous sections given a clear, distinct, and precise statement of it. 
We quote from the paragraph but one preceding the one from which 
the author takes his extract : 

"Tres enim sunt in una divinitate personam: Patris, qui a nullo 
genitus est ; Filii, qui ante omnia saecula a Patre genitus est ; Spiri- 
tus sancti, qui itidem ab teterno ex Patre et Filio procedit. Atqui 
Pater est in una divinitatis substantia prima persona, qui cum unigenito 
Filio suo et Spiritu sancto unus est Deus, unus est Dominus, non in 
unius singularitate personae, sed in unius Trinitate substantias. Jam 



31 

vero has tres personae, cum in iis quidquid dissimile, aut dispar 
cogitare nefas sit, suis tantummodo proprietatibus distinctae intelligen- 
tur. Pater siquidem ingenitus est; Filius a Patre genitus j Spiritus 
sanctus abutroque procediL Atque ita trium personarum eandem 
essentiam, eandem substantiam confitemur ; ut in confessione verae 
sempiternaeque Deitatis, et in personis proprietatem, et in essentia 
unitatem, et in Trinitate aequalitatem pie et sancte colendam creda- 
mus." — Art. I. 12. 

If this does not satisfy the worthy preacher, the fault must be in 
himself. 

The second extract is not fairly made. The Catechism of the 
Council of Trent is designed mainly to guide, direct and assist pastors 
in the instruction of their flocks. It not only lays down what is of 
faith, but suggests the explanations which theologians adopt to enable 
the mind to eonceive them with less difficulty. This is the case in 
the paragraph from which Dr. Potts quotes a part of a sentence. We 
quote the whole paragraph : 

" Ex omnibus autem, quae ad indicandum modum rationemque aeter- 
nae generationis similkudines afferuntur, ilia proprius ad rem videtur 
accedere r quae ab animi nostri eogitatione sumitur y quamobrem Sanctus 
Joannes Filium ejus, (1 Joan. i. 1,) Verbum appellat. Ut enim mens 
nostra, se ipsam quodammodo intelligens, sui effingit imaginem quam 
Verbum Theologi dixerunt; ita Deus, quantum tamen divinis humana 
conferri possunt, seipsum intelligens, verbum aeternum generat; eisi 
prrntat contemplari, quod fides proponit, et sincera mente Jesum Christ- 
um verwni Deum et verum hominem credere et confiteri, genitum qui- 
dem, ut Deum, ante omnium sceculorum atates^ ex Patre ; ut hominem 
vero natum in tempore ex matre Maria Virgine"* — Art. II. 15. 

There is here no occasion for comment. The idle objection of the 
preacher is not worth answering. 

The third objection will vanish, the moment the preacher shall learn 
to distinguish between conception and parturition. The illustration is 
brought to enable us to conceive the possibility of the birth of our Lord 
without damage to the virginity of his mother, not to teach the silly 
heresy the sagacious Doctor deduces from it. The passage we have just 
quoted proves that the Church teaches the humanity no less than the 
divinity of our Saviour, as might well be inferred from the fact, that we 



* " But of all those things which are made use of as similitudes to show the manner and 
way of his eternal generation, that seems to come nearest the matter which is taken from 
the thought of our mind ; wherefore St. John calls the Son his Word. For, as our mind, in 
some manner understanding itself, forms an image of itself, which theologians call Word, 
so God, (as far as human things may be compared with Divine,) understanding himself, gen- 
erates his eternal Word; nevertheless it is better to contemplate what faith proposes, and 
with a sincere heart to believe and confess that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, be- 
gotten, indeed, as God, of the Father, before all ages and generations, but, as man, born ia 
time, of his mother, the Virgin Mary." 



32 

call the blessed Virgin the mother of God, and as such delight to honor 
her. 

If the Doctor has any doubts as to the soundness of our faith in the 
respects in which he seeks to impugn it, we refer him to the Athanasian 
creed, which he knows is authoritative for all Catholics, and which, 
with due deference to him, we must believe is express, not only against 
Arians, as he alleges, but against all who impugn the doctrine of the 
Trinity, or that of the Incarnation. Did he ever read it 1 ? Has he ever 
found a Socinian, a Unitarian, or a Sabelian that could subscribe to it? 
Nay, what standard has he himself for the doctrine of the Trinity, but 
the Nicene and Athanasian creeds? And what evidence can he give 
that even he himself holds- the true doctrine of the Trinity, but the fact? 
that he holds it as the Catholic Church has defined, and still defines it? 

The next objection the preacher makes to the Catholic Church is to 
her " rule of faith," — that is, he objects that she does not adopt the Pro- 
testant rule of faith. The Protestant rule of faith is "the Bible alone.'' 
We deny it. The Bible alone is not, and never can be, the Protestant's 
rule of faith. The pretensions of Protestants in this respect are arrant 
nonsense or rank hypocrisy, with which they humbug themselves, or 
seek to humbug others. Where in the Bible alone does this Presbyte- 
rian Doctor find his doctrine of infant baptism ? his obligation or his 
right to keep the first day of the week, instead of the seventh, as the Sab- 
bath day ? nay, his doctrine of the Trinity itself? Separate the Bible 
from the commentary on it furnished by the belief and practice of the 
Church in all ages, leave merely the naked text, with grammar and 
lexicon, and there is not a man living who can maintain any consistent 
system of doctrines from it without doing violence to its letter and its 
spirit. It would be a book of riddles, and no one could make any thing 
out of it, except here and there a portion of it. If Protestants take the 
Bible alone, why do they differ so among themselves? why have 
they so many commentators ? and why is it that those born and brought 
up Presbyterians, as a general rule, find the Bible teaching Presbyteri- 
anism, and those brought up Unitarians find it teaching Unitarianism 1 
Every sect has its traditions, and by these it, consciously or unconscious- 
ly, interprets the Bible. It cannot avoid doing so, even if it would. 

But what authority has the Protestant for asserting that the Bible alone 
is the rule of faith ? He must establish his rule, and from the Bible itself, 
or he has no right to assume it. This he has never yet done, and this 
he never can do; for the Bible nowhere professes to be the rule of faith. 
It commands us to hear the Church, and assumes throughout that the 
Church is the ultimate authority in controversies concerning faith. 
Moreover, the Bible alone is not, and cannot be the rule of faith. A rule 



33 

of faith is that by which controversies concerning faith may be decided. 
But the Bible alone cannot decide controversies; for it is, iw itself con- 
sidered, a dead letter, and cannot speak till made to speak by some living 
authority, and because nearly all the controversies which arise are con- 
troversies concerning what is the faith as contained in it. 

Our Presbyterian friend is quite indignant that the Church receives as 
canonical, certain books which he is pleased to term apocryphal. Will 
he tell us on what authority he denies the canonicity of these books? Is 
IxCtj even feamaaty spiking, the authority of the Council of Trent 
equal to any authority he can bring against it? We do not recollect 
any Protestant synod that has ever assembled, more respectable for their 
numbers, their learning, their ability, or their piety, than were the fathers 
of the Council of Trent. These decided, as the Church had previously 
decided and held, that the books in question were canonical; and the 
preacher must bring us an authority higher than theirs for saying they 
are not, before we shall be convinced they are not rightfully included 
in the sacred canon. He admits that the Presbyterian Church is falli- 
ble, and he can say no more of the Catholic Church. If his Church is 
fallible, it may err as to the canon, as well as respecting other matters. 
Her authority, then, can never be a sufficient motive for setting aside the 
authority of the Catholic Church. How will he, then, prove to us, that 
in this very matter he himself is not the party in error ? 

The Church, it seems, errs not only in her rule of faith, but in her 
faith itself, especially in her doctrine of justification. She teaches con- 
cerning justification, a doctrine which is different from the Protestant 
doctrine. Admitted. What then? Why, then, she is wrong. We 
beg your pardon. Before you can say we are wrong, because we differ 
from you, you must prove that you are right ; for, till then, it may be 
that you are wrong because you differ from us. But u the doctrine of 
justification by faith has ever been the peculiarly cherished doctrine of 
Protestants." — p. 8. Granted. But Protestants are fallible, and may 
have cherished with peculiar affection a falsehood. But " Luther pro- 
nounced it the doctrine by which the church stands or falls." — ib. But 
Luther also said that all who entertain the views of the Eucharist, taught 
by the Sacramentarians, which views the author of the sermon before us 
entertains, when they die, go straight to hell. Was Luther right in 
this ? No ? Then Luther was fallible. Then he may have erred in 
this doctrine of justification. Then how do you know he did not ? By 
what criterion do you determine when Luther taught truth, and when 
falsehood? From the Bible? But Luther had the Bible as well as 
you ; and how know you that you understand the Bible better than he 
did ? We also have the Bible, and we say the Bible is against you 



34 

both ; and how will you determine that your interpretations of Bible 
doctrine are better than ours ? Do you say our church is fallible ? We 
deny it; but admit it, and even then it is as good as yours, for yours is 
not infallible. 

But this is not all. Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone is 
rejected by many Protestants themselves. Swedenborg sends Luther to 
hell for teaching it ; the Unitarians, Universalists, Quakers, some An- 
glicians, the Genevans, the majority of the French Protestants, and a 
great part of the German Protestants, virtually, if not avowedly, reject 
it. It is hardly true to say of any Protestant sect, at the present day, that 
it really holds it as it was taught by Luther and his brother innovators. 
Dr. Potts ought in justice to convert his Protestant brethren to this doc- 
trine, before making it a ground of accusation against the Church that 
she does not teach it. If she were to accept it, she would gain nothing, 
for she would still be arraigned by Protestants, who, with Bible in hand, 
would undertake to convict her of accepting a false doctrine. 

Moreover, the doctrine in question is a very bad doctrine. As origi- 
nally set forth, by the Reformers, it is, Believe firmly that God remits 
your sins for Christ's sake, and you are justified, without any respect to 
a moral change which may be effected in you. The justified man, 
morally considered, or considered in relation to his actual intrinsic char- 
acter, is just as much of a sinner as he was before justification. The 
only difference between the justified and the unjustified is, that the sins 
of the former are not imputed, while the sins of the latter are. Thus 
you may sin as much as you please, but so long as you believe firmly 
that God remits your sins for Christ's sake, not one of the sins you com- 
mit will be imputed to you, or reckoned as sin. This was Luther's doc- 
trine, and hence, when a young man asks him his advice as to the best 
manner of resisting the temptations of the devil, tells him to drink, get 
drunk, to sin lustily, and spite the Devil. But to justify signifies to 
make just, and no man destitute of justice is justified. The error of the 
Protestants is in placing justification in the simple remission of sin. Sin 
may be remitted, and yet the man want justice. Consequently the re- 
mission is not alone justification. God is a God of truth, and can call no 
man just who is not just. But we will let another speak for us in this 
matter : 

" 'Justification' is that action or -operation of Divine Grace on the 
soul by which a man passes from a state of sin ; from an enemy becomes 
a friend of God, agreeable in the Divine sight, and an heir to eternal 
life. This act of transition from the one state to the other, with its 
operating causes, is called 'justification.' From the circumstance of 
its being a spiritual and interior operation, it is evident that it affords an 
opportunity for theological subtleties to those who would make use of 



S5 

it ; and at the same time, renders it difficult to expose the error which 
those subtleties may be employed to foster. The Church, therefore, has 
always preserved her ancient and orthodox teaching under the form of 
sound words, which heresy has ever betrayed itself by refusing to adopt. 

" Thus, in both communions, justification is acknowledged to be, as to 
its efficient source, from, and through and by Jesus Christ alone. But in 
the Catholic system, this justification, occurring in the modes of the Sa- 
viour's appointment, is not only the imputation, but also the interior ap- 
plication of the justice of Christ, by which guilt is destroyed, pardon be- 
stowed, and the soul replenished by the inherent grace and charity 
of the Holy Spirit. 

" According to the Protestant principle, justification is when a man 
believes with a firm and certain faith, or conviction in his own mind, 
that the justice of Christ is 'imputed' to him. This is that 'faith 
alone ' by which they profess to be saved. The sacraments, for them, 
have no other end or efficacy, except as signs to awaken this individual 
and personal faith, so called, and as tokens of communion. Neither is 
it that any intrinsic or interior operation takes place in the soul by this, 
in which she is changed, by a transition from the state of sin, now remit- 
ted and destroyed, to a state of justice wrought for her, and in her, by 
the application of the merits and infusion of the grace of Christ. No ; 
this is the Catholic doctrine. But, according to the Protestant principle 
no such change takes place. According to that principle, the impious 
man is not made just, even by the adoption of God, or the merits of 
Christ. But, leaving him in his injustice, it is conceived that his sins 
are no longer imputed to him, but that the justice of Christ is imputed 
to him. Thus, a criminal is under guilt and condemnation ; but, in con- 
sideration of a powerful and innocent intercessor, the chief magistrate 
pardons him. It is only by a certain fiction of thought and language 
that such a person can be considered innocent; or that his intrinsic 
guilt can be conceived of as still existing, but as imputed to the one who 
interceded for him, and the justice of that intercessor imputed to him. 
Such is the exact likeness of justification, as taught in the theology of 
Protestantism. But it is to be observed that the sphere which is as- 
signed as the seat of this species of fiction is the mind of God himself! 
The sinner is not intrinsically or really justified in this system ; but we 
are told that God, on account of the merits of Chris), is pleased to regard 
and ' repute' him as such ; that is, God ' reputes' him to be what, in 
reality, he knows him not to be ! 

" St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, speaks of the faith of Abra- 
ham as having been reputed to him unto justice. And Luther, to meet 
the exigencies of his case, seized on the letter of this passage, and distorted 
its spirit and meaning. God had made rich promises to Abraham and 
his posterity. The hope of this promise was in his son Isaac. And 
God, to try the faith of his servant, directed Abraham to immolate this, 
his only eon, as a sacrifice to his name. 

*» Such an order, under such circumstances, was calculated to throw 
deep and impenetrable mystery over the previous promises treasured up 
in the mini of the patriarch. Nevertheless, he falters not in his confi- 
dence, but obeys without a moment's hesitation. He sinks all the appre- 
hensions arising from the suggestions of flesh and blood, and, in the 



simplicity of his confidence, prepares to execute what had been com- 
manded. And it is only when his hand is uplifted to strike, that God 
manifests his acceptance of the will, which, however, embraced the work 
itself, that he is no longer permitted to execute. 

" Such was the faith of Abraham. But it is evident that it embraced 
the works, and that, so far as obedience, will, intention, purpose, and 
even feelings were concerned, Abraham had already completed the sac- 
rifice. Thus, the same Apostle writes, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
ii. 17, 'By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac, and he that 
had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.' 

11 As, however, the outward immolation was not actually or physi- 
cally consummated, Luther was pleased to exclude it altogether from 
the faith of Abraham, contrary to the express words of St. Paul him- 
self. The error of Luther has been incorporated, with but slight 
modifications, into the theology of all the other Protestant denomina- 
tions. Hence the doctrine of salvation by ' faith alone.' By faith, to 
use their own phraseology, the sinner ' seizes' on the merits of Christ, 
— by believing firmly that they are ' imputed' to him. It is not that 
by this he is made just or innocent, but God is pleased to declare, to 
suppose to repute, — let us say it with reverence, — to imagine him as 
such. It is all God's work ; he has not the smallest share in it ; and 
thence the seductive boast of the system, that thus ■ all the glory re- 
turns to God, and nothing to man.' Under the same plea, good works 
were decried as hindrances, rather than helps, in the matter of justifi- 
cation. It was supposed, indeed, that, by a necessary consequence, 
they would appear in the life of the believer, as the fruit and evidence 
of his faith. But even then they could be of no advantage to the 
soul. Neither could sin, except that of unbelief alone, defeat its sal- 
vation. To such a point of insanity did Luther carry his doctrine on 
this subject, that he declares, that, 'if adultery could be committed in 
faith, it would not be a sin.' ' Si in fide fieri posset adulterium, pec- 
catum non esset.' — Luth Disput. t. 1. p. 523. " # 

This is sufficient, and far more to the purpose than anything we 
could ourselves say, and shows conclusively that Catholics " depend 
for salvation on the merits of Christ alone." These merits obtain for 
us not only the grace of forgiveness, but also the grace of justifica- 
tion, whereby our works are rendered meritorious. They are the 
source and ground of our merit, and without them we could merit 
nothing. Thus, in our act of Hope, we say, " O my God ! relying on 
thy goodness and promises, I hope to obtain forgiveness for my sins, 
and life everlasting, through the merits of Jesus Christ, my only Lord 
and Redeemer." 

The author of the sermon makes further quotations from the Coun- 
cil of Trent, which, he says, teach that " all true righteousness is at 



* Rt. Rev. John Hughes, D. D., Bishop of New York. From the Introduction to " An 
Inquiry into the Merits of the Reformed Doctrine of ' Imputation,' as contrasted with those 
of * Catholic Imputation.' By Vanbrugh Livingston. New York, 1843." 



37 

first imparted, then increased, and afterwards restored if lost," by the 
holy Sacraments, (p. 9.) Well, what then? 

" These quotations are sufficient to show the groundwork of the 
Papal plan of salvation ; the Sacraments by their own power confer 
grace; thus the believer is regenerated by baptism, united to Christ by the 
Eucharist, is then able to keep the whole law, and deserves heaven for his 
good works. A plan that is the very opposite of Christ's, as revealed 
in the word of God. And if salvation is only found by embracing 
Christ's plan, then the Papal system so far from teaching the essential 
truths of salvation, teaches a system that will inevitably destroy the 
soul. If the question is asked, Are there not true Christians in that 
Church ? My answer is, I think so ; but they are the children of 
God, not because of the teachings of that Church, but notwithstanding 
those teachings. They are those, who from the word of God, have 
gathered the system of Christ, and hold a plan of faith the opposite of 
that of Rome, whilst they still continue in her communion., instead of 
obeying God's command, ' Come out of her, my people.' " — p. 10. 

" The Sacraments confer grace by their own power ;" but what is 
their own power ? Simply the power of God, who instituted them. 
He is himself the causa efficiens operating in the Sacrament. Is it 
contrary to Christianity to look upon God as conferring grace ? " The 
believer is regenerated by Baptism." Very well. Is it contrary to 
Christianity to assert that the individual is regenerated by the Holy 
Ghost in the Sacrament of Baptism ? If we assert that the water 
used in baptism, or the words pronounced by the administrator, re- 
generated, as efficient causes, the recipient, we should doubtless con- 
tradict the " plan of salvation." But we see no contradiction in saying 
that one is regenerated in baptism by the Holy Ghost operating in it. 
If any one should have called the burning bush that Moses saw, God, 
he would have been wrong, and yet he might have said God was in 
the bush. The Sacraments are instrumental causes of grace, but God 
is himself the efficient cause. " We merit heaven by our good works." 
Granted, if be understood good works wrought in us by grace, or by 
us through grace 5 otherwise, we deny it. The merit comes through 
the grace, which itself comes through the merits of Christ, and there- 
fore it is only through the merits of Christ that we do or can merit 
heaven. The merit itself is of grace, not of nature. Nothing we 
are naturally able to do, does, or can merit eternal life. Our Saviour 
says, " Without me ye can do nothing." We do not merit the grace ; 
that is freely bestowed in reward of the merits of Jesus Christ, and 
it is only through that grace working effectually in and through us 
that we are enabled to merit everlasting life. 

Our liberal Presbyterian minister, we are gratified to perceive, 
thinks there may, after all, be some Christians in the Catholic Church. 
4 



We are much obliged to him, and shall be still more obliged to him 
when he proves that there can be good Christians out of the Catholic 
Church. He asks us to come out of her. Well, where shall we go, 
if we leave her ? Into the Presbyterian communion, and offend by so 
doing the immense majority of the Protestant world? When all 
Protestants will agree as to what is the true Church of Christ, the 
true Christian faith, and " Gospel ordinances," we will consider the 
question of leaving the Church, but till then we cannot entertain it. 
We have had disputation and vexation enough for our short life, and 
we cannot consent to come out of the Church, unless we know where 
and to w r hat we are to come. As matters now stand, we should, if 
we joined the Presbyterians, be assured by five hundred other sects, 
that we were wrong. And the Scriptures also say something about 
the dog returning to his vomit, and the sow to her wallowing in the 
mire. We have been a Presbyterian once. 

The preacher (p. 11.) speaks of the " idolatrous services" of the 
Catholic Church. We answered this charge of idolatry in our last 
Review, and have no occasion to say anything in addition to what we 
then said. The charge is as silly as it is false. Yet one cannot but 
be grieved at the ignorance or the malice that makes it, and at the 
fatal effect it has in keeping the great mass of Protestants from the 
way of life. 

After these charges, the preacher proceeds to sketch the history of 
the Jesuits, and to show what an intriguing and dangerous set of 
mortals they are. We have no room to follow him through this part 
of his discourse. He falls, of course, into almost as many errors as 
he makes assertions. But we must leave them for the present. In 
the meantime we cannot forbear expressing our full conviction that 
the Society of Jesus is under the special guidance of Almighty God, 
and that he will avenge himself on its persecutors. France warred 
against the Jesuits and expelled them; she had her reward; — Soain 
warred against the Jesuits and expelled them ; she is now reaping her 
reward. We want no better proof of the sanctity and utility of the 
Order than the fact, that Protestants, infidels, and tyrants are every- 
where opposed to it. It is remarkable now what dread the word 
Jesuit inspires. Who are the Jesuits? Simple priests vowed to 
poverty, devoted chiefly to educational and missionary labors, without 
power or influence, save what is in their faith, talents, learning, zeal, 
and sanctity. When such men inspire terror, the just may take 
courage, and thank God that we have them. The Order is unques- 
tionably one of the most efficient instruments in the hands of God for 
recalling the erring, confirming the wavering, converting the unbe- 



39 

lieving, and of consolidating the empire of our Lord in the hearts and 
lives of men, and hence the hostility it everywhere has encountered 
and still encounters. Hence the nations rage and the people devise 
vain things against it ; hence the wicked foam at the mouth and gnash 
their teeth, and kings and princes conspire against it. In vain. 
11 Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? It is hard for thee to kick 
against the pricks." The Lord knoweth how to defend his own, 
This Order is dear to him, and for the sake of its saints and martyrs 
he will protect it and crown it with new honors. 

To hear people talk, one would think half the world were Jesuits. 
They swarm everywhere. One cannot turn over a leaf, but a Jesuit 
will start up. They are omnipresent. They are omnipotent. They 
are at the bottom of all movements, — of every intrigue, every out- 
break. Nobody is safe. Yet the Order counts in all less than five 
thousand members dispersed on missions among infidels, or employed 
in the quiet and simple business of education. It is strange that 
such a small company of men should create so much terror and alarm. 
Alas, " conscience makes cowards of us all." 

Dr. Potts tells us, " The children of the Ecclesiastical States are 
kept in ignorance." — p. 11. The population of the Ecclesiastical 
States is about two and a half millions. In these States there are 
seven universities ; and in the city of Rome, with a population of a 
hundred and fifty thousand, there are for the children of the poorer 
and middle classes at least three hundred and eighty schools, the 
greater part of them supported by private munificence. To assert 
that the Church holds that " ignorance is the mother of devotion" 
(ib.) betrays more ignorance than malice. If it were so, we should 
have fewer Protestants in the w T orld. The Church undoubtedly holds 
that there may be false learning, false philosophy, deceitful, vain, that 
puffs up. makes its possessors wise in their own conceit, indocile, and 
unwilling to bow in meekness and humility to the word of God ; and 
such learning and philosophy she unquestionably does not encourage ; 
for she holds and teaches what her invisible Spouse has said, that 
" Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 
But real knowledge, but true learning, that knowledge and learning 
which make " wise unto salvation," she does her best to impart and 
diffuse. Would that we could say as much of her calumniators. 

For ourselves, we do not suffer ourselves to be humbugged by the 
cry about education. Give us the right sort of education, and the 
more of it the better; give us the wrong sort, and the less of it the 
better. Our people are a reading people ; better that they could not 
read than that they should read the miserable trash the press is now 



40 

sending forth. We have lived long enough to learn that not every 
" whitened heap yonder" is to be taken for so much flour. Immense 
danger may lurk under specious names. We are, as we have always 
been, the friends of education, but not of bad education, or of an 
education which educates for earth instead of heaven, for the devil 
instead of God. 

The author of the sermon thinks the aim of the Jesuits in this 
country is, by the education of youth, to counterwork Protestantism 
(p. 14.) W T hat ! is the Doctor afraid of education? Is Protestant- 
ism not proof against light ? We thought it was the boast of its 
friends that it was born of the advanced intelligence of the human 
race, and had the capacity to expand and adapt itself to every change 
of the human intellect. A moment ago, the Doctor upbraided us 
with our love of ignorance, accused us of not educating our children ; 
and now he is afraid, if we educate it will be all up with Protestant- 
ism. Really, it is a hard thing to please a Presbyterian Doctor of 
Divinity, 

" They [the Jesuits] will involve this land in troubles and con- 
flicts." — p. 15. The truth never yet was preached, but it produced 
troubles and conflicts. Our blessed Lord himself said, " Think not 
that I am come to send peace on earth." No doubt, if the Gospel is 
preached here truly, faithfully, boldly, by its earnest and devoted 
missionaries, the wicked will be offended, and the devil will do his 
best to stir up troubles and conflicts. But we would rather have war 
than peace with error, with sin, with the world, with the flesh, with 
the devil. If Dr. Potts would not, then all we have to say is, that 
he does not appear to agree with our Lord and his apostles. 

But "they will gain an influence which they will turn to the ruin 
of liberty." — ib. But we thought one of the principal charges against 
the Jesuits was, that they were the enemies of crowned heads, and 
king-killers. If so, they must be ultra-republicans. In monarchical 
governments they are dreaded as enemies of the monarchy, in repub- 
lics as the enemies of popular liberty ! This is singular. We have 
before us the Remonstrance for the Divine Right of Kings-, written by 
the English Solomon, the learned King Jamie, in which he labors to 
prove that the Catholic Church is at war with kingly government, 
and for that reason ought not to be tolerated. Our American Calvin- 
ists, men who began here by founding a theocracy, or rather a minis- 
ter-ocracy, and made church-membership the condition of citizenship, 
are now terribly alarmed lest the Jesuits shall overthrow democracy 
and set up a king. W 7 hen our Calvinistic brethren shall show that 
they have some regard for any other liberty than the liberty of gov- 



41 

erning, we will listen to their fears on this head. We are Americans 
as well as they, love our country as much, and have as much at stake 
as any one of them ; for, in becoming a Catholic, we did not cease to 
be a man, a citizen, or a patriot ; and we are as well convinced as we 
are that we are now writing, that the preservation and wholesome 
working of our democratic institutions depend on the general preva- 
lence among our people of the Catholic religion. We say this not 
merely as the Catholic convert, but as the citizen who has not wholly 
neglected political and philosophical studies. 

But it seems that " the character of the instruction imparted in our 
schools has nothing in it giving them a peculiar claim to popular 
favor, unless it be their prices." — p. 15. Perhaps the Doctor is not 
a competent judge. It is possible, also, that he is not acquainted with 
all the names the Order has produced since its restoration, for we 
could mention some of the names which are at least " above medioc- 
rity." As educators, the French University seems to stand in awe of 
them. The Doctor would do well to become acquainted with their 
schools, before undertaking to discuss their merits. Perhaps, were 
he to do so, he would not hazard the assertion, that k< a graduate of 
one of these universities is not qualified to enter the junior class at 
Princeton, Yale, or any of the more respectable Protestant colleges of 
our land." The regular course of studies in our Jesuits* colleges is 
as thorough, as extensive, and of as high an order, as that of the best 
Protestant colleges, and those who take the regular and full course 
will have, on graduating, no occasion to regard themselves as inferior 
to the graduates of Protestant universities. University education in 
this country, whether by Catholics or Protestants, is, however, we 
are willing to admit, far from being what it should be. The charac- 
teristic of our people is to " go ahead." We are impatient, averse 
to long, slow, and toilsome labor. What we cannot do quickly we 
will not do at all. We will not spend the time necessary to become 
thorough scholars ; consequently the whole scholarship of the coun- 
try, with a few individual exceptions, is limited and superficial. The 
Jesuits cannot at once overcome this. Their education becomes 
necessarily in some degree Americanized, and is, no doubt, less 
thorough than it is generally abroad, or than it will be here when 
their colleges have had time to become more thoroughly established 
and are more liberally supported. 

But be this as it may, the Jesuits' colleges are admirably adapted 

to the present wants of the Catholic population. They suit us very 

well and whether they suit Protestants or not i3 a matter of small 

moment. We ourselves have our son3 in the colleges of the Jesuits, 

4# 



and, in placing them there, we feel that we are discharging our duty 
as a father to them, and as a citizen to the country. We rest easy, 
for we feel they are where they will be trained up in the way they 
should go ; where their faith and morals will be cared for, which with 
us is the great thing. It is more especially for the moral and religious 
training which our children will receive from the good fathers that 
we esteem these colleges. Science, literature, the most varied and 
profound scholastic attainments, are worse than useless, where coupled 
with heresy, infidelity, or impiety. 

As to the female schools under the charge of the Ursulines, the 
Sisters of Charity, of the Visitation, the Sacred Heart, &c., we want 
no better proof of their excellence than the simple fact, that Protest- 
ants, notwithstanding their prejudices against the religious orders, 
send, and are eager to send, their daughters to them, and feel that 
they are safe so long as under the more than maternal care of the 
good sisters. That it is not the price that induces Protestant parents 
to send their daughters to our schools is evident from the fact, that the 
project for a sort of female university, started by some good Protestant 
ladies, at Cincinnati, if we have not been misinformed, cannot be got 
under way for the want of scholars, notwithstanding the expense for 
the pupil is to be merely nominal. The institute has funds in abun- 
dance ladies who are pledged to instruct gratuitously, and nothing i* 
wanting but scholars. Unhappily, these cannot be got for either love 
or money. 

The disparaging terms in which Dr. Potts speaks of the instruction* 
imparted by the sisters are natural enough from a Presbyterian minis- 
ter, but may be refuted at any time by a few minutes' conversation 
with a young lady educated in one of our female academies* There 
is something in the very atmosphere of the Catholic schools that gives 
an inexpressible charm to the female character, which we have never 
found in a Protestant, not brought up in some degree under Catholic 
influence. There is a purity, a delicacy, a sweetness, a gentleness, 
a grace, a dignity, about a Catholic lady, that you shall look in vain 
for in a purely Protestant lady, however high-born or well-bred. It 
is only in the Catholic lady that woman appears in all her loveliness, 
worth, and glory. It is Catholicity that has wrought out woman's 
emancipation, elevated her from her former menial condition, rescued 
her from the harem of the voluptuary, and made her the companion, 
and not unfrequently more than the companion, of man. Every 
Catholic daughter has a model of excellence in the Blessed Virgin, 
and not in vain from earliest infancy is she taught to lisp Ave Maria, 
gra'ia plena, Dominus tecum ; Lencdicta iu in mulieribus : for the Holy 



43 

Mother reigns grace and sweetness on all who devote themselves to 
her honor and implore her protection. 

The association with those who honor the Blessed Virgin, see in 
her the model of every female grace and every female virtue, and 
whom she honors with her special protection, is not without its chas- 
tening and hallowing influence, and the loveliest and the noblest 
Protestant ladies we have ever known are those who have been edu- 
cated in Catholic schools. The good sisters have nothing to fear from 
the aspersions of Dr. Potts. Their pupils will speak for them, and 
constitute their defence. Yet, if Protestants do not like our schools, 
all we have to say is, let them go and institute better ones, — if they 
can. 

But enough. We have lingered too long upon this not very re- 
markable sermon ; but as we have done little else than to make it the 
thread on which to string some observations, perhaps not wholly 
uncalled for, nor inappropriate to the time and country, we hope we 
shall be forgiven. The Church may be assailed, will be assailed ; 
but we know it is founded on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against it. It is now firmly established in this country, and 
persecution will but cause it to thrive. Our countrymen may be 
grieved that it is so ; but it is useless for them to kick against the 
decrees of Almighty God. They have had an open field and fair 
play for Protestantism. Here Protestantism has had free scope, has 
reigned without a* rival, and proved what she could do, and that her 
best is evil ; for the very good she boasts is not hers. A new day is 
dawning on this chosen land j a new chapter is about to open in our 
history, — and the Church to assume her rightful position and in- 
fluence. Ours shall yet become consecrated ground, and here the 
kingdom of God's dear Son shall be established. Our hills and 
valleys shall yet echo to the convent bell. The cross shall be planted 
throughout the length and breadth of our land, and our happy sons 
and daughters shall drive away fear, shall drive away evil from our 
borders, with the echoes of their matin and vesper hymns. No 
matter who writes, who declaims, who intrigues, who is alarmed, or 
what leagues are formed, this is to be a Catholic country; and from 
Maine to Georgia, from the broad Atlantic to broader Pacific, the 
' ; clean Sacrifice" is to be offered daily for quick and dead. 



REPLY 

TO 

BROWNSON ? S REVIEW 

BY WM. S. POTTS, D. D. 



Mr. Brownson, in his Quarterly Review of January, 1846', has 
written a long article, occupying twenty-six pages, reviewing the 
Sermon on the "Dangers of Jesuit Instruction." As he stands be- 
fore the public endorsed by the Romish Church in this country — he 
says, " the Bishops and clergy have, we believe, very generally ap- 
proved our labors" — and as his work is the most popular of their 
periodicals, we propose devoting a few numbers to his article. 

In the commencement it may not be improper to return a compli- 
ment paid to the author of the Sermon, in the first few lines of the 
Review,, by saying of Mr. Brownson we know something of him, 
though it is not much. Our first recollection of his name was m 
connexion with the Democratic Review* He was then a most violent 
and ultra partisan in the political ranks, remarkable for wild and 
visionary speculations, and regarded as very unsafe by his own party, 
The next phase of his Review that came under our obseravtion 
showed its author a convert to Transcendentalism, having all his ideas 
so sublimated that the every day sort of readers thought he wrote 
nonsense, and paragraphs from his pen were quoted and passed from 
one paper to another all over the land as extraordinary specimens of 
the nomntelligible. The next phase of the Review — this soaring 
spirit had returned to earth and become a second " Defender of the 
Faith." Meek as a child he is found sitting at the feet of his ghostly 
superiors, "not relying," he says, "on our own private judgment., 
but receiving the truth in humility from those Almighty God has 
commissioned to teach us, and whom he has commanded us to obey." 
We have been informed, that he has been also a Fanny Wright man, 
and again a Unitarian; and he tells us in the article under considera- 
tion, to complete the cycle of his changes, that he " has. been a Pres- 
byterian once." This last assertion we are disposed to question.} be^ 



46 

cause, after an experience of some twenty years in the Presbyterian 
Church we have found it composed of a very different material ; and 
because we think he does not distinguish between Congregationalists 
and Presbyterians. Our knowledge consequently of the Reviewer 
is not very favorable. There is a screw out somewhere whenever a 
mind is found veering about through the whole universe of opinions 
— holding notions to-day and pronouncing upon them with all the 
dogmatism of an oracle, which to-morrow he flatly contradicts, and 
as peremptorily asserts their opposites. 

In the recent change that has taken place in this erratic genius 
there are two things that have occasioned surprise: first, that such a 
mind, rejoicing in its freedom as it shot off and coruscated through 
the heavens, should have been caged by his holiness and sunk into 
the mere tool of a set of priests, abjuring the right of exercising his 
own judgment ; and, second, that the wily emissaries of Rome should 
have endorsed so uncertain an instrument. The only explanation we 
can find for the first difficulty is, that "extremes meet;" and, per- 
haps, it is well, when a man finds that he is incapable of managing 
his own mind, because of his utter want of ballast, that he has the 
wisdom to commit it to the management of others. Macaulay in one 
of his reviews, commends the policy of the Romish establishment for 
its facility in managing all kinds of minds and turning them to good 
account. He says, if in a Protestant Church a man becomes wild 
and fanatical, they admonish him to be quiet, if he refuses they throw 
him over the wall ; but with the Romish Church it is different, her 
Ecclesiastics pat him on the shoulder, bid him cultivate his beard, 
put on him an old grey- cloak, tie a rope round his waist and hang a 
huge wooden cross to it, and send him forth, like Peter the Hermit, 
to preach a crusade. Perhaps this may throw some light on our 
second difficulty, and the fiery zeal and eccentricities of this new 
made convert from amongst the Puritans are to be used for a similar 
employment. 

The first difficulty the Reviewer finds in the Sermon is in ascer- 
taining who are the Church officers to whom the oversight of the 
Church properly belongs, and who are consequently charged with the 
duty of seeing that parents perform their vows to bring up their 
children " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." He says, 
sc who are these Church officers ? and, especially, who are to see to 
it that they rightly instruct, or do not misinstruct the Church ? The 
Church officers instruct the Church ; but who instructs and appoints 
the Church officers ? The earth stands on the turtle, but what does 
the turtle stand on ?"— p. 20. 



47 

Mr. Brownson is very young in theological studies, and is not yet 
master of the theory of his new friends. A single year is a very 
short time in which to expect to master the subtleties of the Papal 
system alone, and whatever may be the brilliancy of our Reviewer's 
mind, theology is not grasped by intuition. We presume there is no 
difference between Rome and us on the questions asked. We hold 
that the Holy Ghost appoints overseers in the Church and instructs 
them ; if he denies this he cuts himself and his Church off from all 
Divine appointment, as well as denies the express language of Scrip- 
ture. Does he mean to say we have no regularly appointed officers 
because we do not receive our appointment through the Bishops of 
Rome, and claim an advantage on this score ? But the Pope is a 
Church officer, and if he goes back step by step through his broken 
and often interrupted chain of Popes to Peter himself, yet Peter him- 
self was a Church oificer, and the question arises still, who appointed 
Peter? Or will he stop with the infallibility of the Church itself? 
Then, to use his own Brahminical figure, according to him, the Earth 
stands on the turtle, and the turtle stands on itself? 

If Mr. B. had not surrendered his right to think for himself into 
the hands of his priests, we would refer him to 1 Cor. xii. 28, where 
the Apostle Paul — held, we believe, to be good authority in the Papal 
Church, though he was not a Pope — says, " God hath set some in 
the Church, first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ; thirdly, teachers ; 
after that, miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, di- 
versities of tongues." This language of a gospel minister has been 
the doctrine of the true Church ever since — God appoint* Church 
officers. To their brethren, similarly appointed, they are accountable 
for the instructions they give ; and these again, are responsible for 
their decisions to Jesus Christ, the alone head of the Church. With 
us, the earth stands on the turtle, and the turtle stands on the Rock 
of Ages. If the Reviewer can show a more direct, certain and 
Scriptural mode of appointment we will be glad to hear; we are 
open to conviction, not having relinquished the right to exercise "our 
own private judgment." 



Protestant Parents are bound not to intrust their Children to Roman 
Catholic Instructors. 
Mr. Brownson agrees perfectly with the author of the Sermon on 
\ the " Dangers of Jesuit Instruction," as to the importance of the pre- 
cept of the text, and also in its explanation, thereby differing very 



48 

widely from a certain Mr. Davis, of the Alton Telegraph, who thinks 
that religion has nothing to do with education. The Reviewer says : 
" The parent who brings his child to the Sacrament of Baptism, in- 
curs a solemn obligation to do all in his power to bring him up in a 
truly Christian manner ; and if he do not, and the child through that 
neglect be lost, terrible will be the account he will one day be called 
upon to settle with his Maker and his Judge." — p. 20. We heartily 
concur in this sentiment, and recommend it to the careful considera- 
tion of every Protestant parent. 

All that is said in the Sermon concerning the danger of intrusting 
children to instructors whose characters, morals, or religious senti- 
ments are bad or erroneous, even though those sentiments should not 
be directly taught, Mr. B. also approves ; and further, he concurs in 
the opinion of the author, that persons seeking this important trust 
should be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. He says: "We 
should find it extremely difficult to bring ourselves to intrust the edu- 
cation of our children to instructors we held to be unsound in the 
faith. There is no torture we would not endure sooner than trust 
them to the care of Presbyterian teachers, even in matters but re- 
motely connected with faith and morals." — p. 21. Here then is an 
open acquittal, by a regularly endorsed organ of the Roman priest- 
hood, of the very crime with which the Bishop's News Letter of this 
city has charged the author of the Sermon, and which the Alton 
mouth-piece of the Jesuits has reiterated, viz : having given publicity 
to his sentiments on these subjects from bigotry and a disposition to 
persecute the papists. For the Reviewer plainly shows, that were 
he in charge of a congregation, he would feel the duty imperative to 
warn the people of his charge against intrusting their children to 
persons esteemed by him '* unsound in the faith." The sentiments 
of the Reviewer too, be it remembered, are warmly endorsed by the 
News Letter, which thinks the Review a most masterly production, 
and co-operates in its re-publication in this city. Then, it seems, our 
worthy Romish prelate thinks it very wicked, bigoted and persecuting 
for a Presbyterian minister to do what, the circumstances being re- 
versed, would be a most righteous action in a Romish priest. Very 
good logic, and very like the past history of Rome. 

But Mr. Brownson finds great fault with the inference drawn from 
these admitted principles : that because parents are bound to bring up 
their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, therefore 
they are bound not to intrust them to Catholic instructors. But why ? 
If the author has shown that Catholic instructors are not sound in the 
faith, does not his conclusion inevitably follow ? But Mr. B. says: 



49 

"None but Catholic instructors do, or can, impart a truly Christian 
education." But that is Mr. Brownson's opinion merely, worth as 
much as many an opinion given concerning Unitarianism, Fanny 
Wrightism, and all the other isms on which he has formerly pro- 
nounced. He had better have waited until he got through the ex- 
amination of that part of the Sermon which inquires into their faith. 
But the object of this unexpected leap to a conclusion was to get an 
opportunity of having a thrust at the decision of the last General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, that baptism by a popish 
priest is not valid. A very annoying decision, no doubt, to Mr. 
B.'s mind, now that he was just coming to the conclusion that he had 
found rest in the true Church after his weary journeyings from sect 
to sect. He says : " In a recent act of their General Assembly, as- 
serting the invalidity of Catholic baptism, they (the Presbyterians) 
have unchrisiened themselves." Mark his reasoning : " Men are 
made Christians in the Sacrament of Baptism. The Presbyterians 
have no baptism but that which they derived from the Catholic 
Church, and their title to the Christian name rests on the validity of 
that baptism. They have declared that baptism invalid. Conse- 
quently, according to their own declaration, they have always been, 
and are, a set of unbaptised — Presbyterians, and therefore completely 
out of the pale of Christendom." — p. 21. The Pope should send 
him the golden rose, or a leather medal for his reasoning — such a 
man can prove anything, especially if you allow him to assume his 
premises. That men are made Christians, in the sense of the Sermon, 
in the Sacrament of Baptism, is a perfectly new idea to Protestants. 
We, poor silly people, thought men were made Christians by the 
il renewing of the Holy Ghost ;" and that was the opinion of one 
Paul, whose writings we have before adverted to, as of supposed au- 
thority in the Romish Church. The second proposition of his argu- 
ment is just as faulty. Presbyterians derive their baptism from the 
command of God, and never dream of the necessity of requiring the 
administrator to trace back his authority to Papal or Pagan Rome. 
Neither does Mr. B.'s own Church require any such thing in the ad- 
ministrator. In the exercise of her infallibility, she has decided that 
a Jew, Turk or Infidel may properly administer baptism, provided he 
means to do what the Church does in the administration of that rite. 
The Reviewer had better take care, or else he will get into trouble 
with his superiors to whom he has promised to surrender his private 
judgment. We again assert, that from the principles laid down in 
the Sermon and admitted fully by the Reviewer, the conclusion fol- 
lows irresistibly, that if the Church of Rome is unsound in the faith. 



\ 



50 

Christian parents are solemnly bound not to intrust their children to 
Roman Catholic instructors. In other words, all Protestant Christians 
are so bound, for the very name Protestant shows that they protest 
against Rome for this very unsoundness. 

Mr. Brownson takes exception to what is said in the Sermon about 
individuals and ecclesiastical orders in the Romish Church, soliciting 
Protestants to intrust their children to them. He says : 

" We are sure that Catholics do not solicit Protestants to intrust 
them with the education of their children. We establish schools for 
our own children, that we may discharge the duty the preacher is 
laboring to enforce ; and it can be no sin in us to request Catholic 
parents to send their children to Catholic schools. We no not re- 
quest Protestants to send their children to our schools ; we are not 
particularly desirous of receiving them, and some of our colleges 
will not receive them at all. It is a favor we confer on Protestants, 
when we admit their sons and daughters into our schools, for which 
they should thank us, both for their own sake and their children's 
sake, not abuse us." — p. 22.* 

So — we have been under a mistake. The Jesuits, an order estab- 
lished to " counterwork the reformation" by educating the youth, are 
not particularly desirous of receiving Protestant children into their 



* We are aware, that in every prospectus for a female school, they are careful to publish 
to the wGrld, that they do not interfere with the religious principles ©f their pupils. But 
whatever may be the truth or falsehood of such pledges, we know from their own publica- 
tions -v hat i-s the main design of these institutions. What says Bishop Flaget, of Bards- 
town? "Still, had I treasures at my disposal, I would multiply colleges, and schools for 
girls and boys : I would consolidate all these establishments, by annexing to them lands or 
annual rents ; I would build hospitals and public houses : in a word, I would compel all my 
Kentuckians to admire and love a religion so beneficent and generous, una perhaps'l 
should finish by converting them. The directors of the association for the faith ought not 
to scruple sending abundant alms to bishops, whose wants plead more eloquently than their 
letters." What says the publication of the association? " Mgr. Flaget lias established in 
his diocese many convents of nuns devoted io the education of" young females. These es- 
tablishments do wonderful good." >~ow, stop hi re, reader, and inquire in what way these 
establishments do wonderful good. By promoting general education, one would suppose. 
No— this is not even mentioned. But they do wonderful good in this tony: "Catholics and 
Protestants are admitted indiscriminately. The latter, after having finished their educa- 
tion, return to the bosom of their families, full of esteem and veneration for their instruc- 
tresses. They are ever ready to refute the calumnies, which the jealousy of heretics loves 
t j spread against the religious communities ; and often, when they have r'o longer the vppo- 
sition of their relatione to fear, they embrace the Catholic religion." This is the way in 
which these institutions do good. Bishop Flaget expresses himself as greatly consoled by 
the fact, that " more than two hundred young women who have taken their vows in these 
institutions, (viz: the Lovers of Mary, the Sisters of Charity, and the Dominican Kuns.) 
are principally devoted to the education of persons of their own sex." 

That the main design of Roman schools is to promote Popery, is manifest also from the 
following letter from the Bishop of St. Louis to the Leopold Society : " On coming to this 
land we felt sensibly the want of proper schools, fur furthering the propagation if our hoty 
religion. At present, a college is connected with the Seminary ol St. Mary, at the Barrens, 
&c. It may be objected, perhaps, that the establishment of these institutions is not connect- 
ed with the progress of religion. But when we consider that thus not only is religion pre- 
vented from suffering important injury ; but also furnished with numerous and important 
advantages, we shall be convinced, that we are indeed laboring, for the growth of the faith, 
when we call into life such institutions. I will only say, that our universities, eoV 
nunneries, hospitals, and orphan houses, give Protestants the most favorable and exalted 
opinion of our religion,'' £cc. Can we be mistaken when we assert, in view of these state- 
ments from Soman bishops, that the main design of Boman schools is, to promote Popery? 
They arc not established by societies for the promotion of education, but by the society for 
the "propagation of the Faith, and by the Leopold Foundation, a governmental society in 
Austria^ headed by the Emperor, for the same purpose. Unless, therefore, we are willing 
to contribute to the c -vtension of the impious and destructive errors of Popery ; we cannot 
patronize such institutions. So far as we do so, we contribute to the establishment of a 
Bjsrtejm of religion, v. hose fundamental principles arc at war with our free institutions, and 
destructive to the best interests of society.— Nunneries Exposed, by N. L. Rice. D. D. 



51 

schools, but only admit them occasionally as a special favor ! We 
regret that the colleges were not named that refuse utterly this favor 
to Protestant children. It must have been because Mr. B. thought 
this, their policy, was so notorious as to render specifications unneces- 
sary. And yet, such is the ignorance of the Protestant and Roman 
Catholic population on this side of the mountains, that we suspect 
this intelligence will take them all by surprise. We have colleges 
established in our own State in places where all the Roman Catho- 
lic children in the county could not furnish a respectable com- 
mon school. Preparations are in progress, as we learn, in other 
places, for similar erections, where there is scarce a Roman family 
within several miles. Still we are told these schools are to supply 
the wants of " our own children." We have been very ignorant — 
very. 

Mr. Brownson agrees with the author of the Sermon that these 
institutions are designed to furnish education at reduced prices. We 
merely call the attention of the Alton Telegraph to this fact, in pass- 
ing, seeing a considerable part of the Review from that quarter con- 
sisted in a labored argument to show that Roman Catholic schools 
were more expensive than Protestant. These two gentlemen of the 
"short robe" had better have an understanding. Mr. B. says: 
" Our instructors are for the most part vowed to poverty, and devoted 
to the work of education, not for the love of money but for the love 
of God. Education is with them a religious vocation." Therefore 
he infers they are able " to compete moie than successfully, wherever 
established, with Protestant schools."— p. 22.* Thus it has happened 
that the love of getting things cheap, has induced many a Protestant 
parent to break his vows to God, and be instrumental in the destruc- 
tion of the soul of his child. 



* Nunneries in our country are grand speculating establishments. The clergy erect 
splendid buildings, adapted to accommodate from one hundred to two hundred boarders ; 
they place a parcel of Nuns in them — some of whom are to be employed as teachers, while 
others can do the coarser work. Some can figure in the school room and in the parlor — 
others in the kitchen and corn-field. Thus prepared, they invite parents to commit to them 
the education of their daughters. Their establishments are filled with multitudes of board- 
ers ; and thousands of dollars annually flow into them. Suppose we take Nazareth, near 
Bardstown, as an example. This institution is located on a large farm. Perhaps there are 
generally in the establishment from thirty to fifty Nuns, to perform the necessary labors. 
The institution has had about one hundred boarders. Suppose their board and tuition to 
average one hundred and fifty dollars per annum — and this is certainly a moderate estimate 
— their annual income will be fifteen thousand dollars. What becomes of all this money ? 
Do the Nuns receive a just reward for their labors ? No — their vow binds them to ■poverty. 
It goes into the coffers of the clergy. Other literary institutions in our country do nothing 
more than support themselves : but these Nunnery academies enrich their owners. We 
hold it to be the duty of every philanthropist to throw the whole weight of his influence 
against establishments which by superstitious delusions deprive females of their liberty, 
and then by their hard labor enrich a parcel of pretended clergymen. Such institutions 
are in the strongest sense of the terms anli- Re publican and anti- Christian. Their whole 
discipline is despotic. The Nunneries of Kentucky have been one of tho chief sources of 
the immense wealth now possessed by the Roman clergy in this State.— Nunneries Exposed, 
by Dr. Rice, 



52 

Can the Bible be undei'stood without the explanation of the Church 1 
We come now to the examination of that part of the Review in 
which Mr. Brownson attempts to defend the Romish faith from un- 
soundness. After all his quibbling, lie finally agrees, "if Catholics 
do not hold the essential truths of the Christian religion, parents un- 
doubtedly cannot with a safe conscience commit their children to their 
care. So far," says the Reviewer, " we agree with Dr. Potts." But 
here a new point of difficulty is raised. He says : " It is undeniable 
that we cannot decide this question, unless we have some standard or 
criterion of orthodoxy. What is this criterion ? By what standard 
does the zealous Doctor propose to try the Catholic faith? By the 
Bible ? Well, by the Bible as he understands it, or as Catholics un- 
derstand it?" Again: " But take the Bible itself; neither your un- 
derstanding of it, nor mine, — but the Bible, the precious Bihle, the 
word of God itself. With all my heart. But the Bible is nothing to 
us, unless we attach some meaning to it ; and if we attach a false 
meaning to it, then what we take to be the Bible is not the Bible. 
We do not take the Bible, unless we take it in God's sense — in the 
sense intended by the Holy Ghost, who dictated it. How shall we 
ascertain this sense?" — p. 23. Again, further on: " Separate the 
Bible from the commentary on it furnished by the belief and practice 
of the Church in all ages, leave merely the naked text, with grammar 
and lexicon, and there is not a man living who can maintain any con- 
sistent system of doctrines frem it without doing violence to its letter 
and its spirit. It would be a book of riddles, and no one could make 
anything out of it, except here and there a portion of it." — p. 32. 

This string of puerile sophistry and blasphemy, of which there are 
pages in the Review to the same purpose, requires some special 
notice, because it is the old argument of Rome against the ward of 
God, and which we find in almost every one of their books we open. 
It requires very little penetration for the reader to perceive that the 
doctrine here laid down is just as applicable to every other book 
that ever was written as to the Bible. And the consequence is, if 
Mr. Brownson's reasoning is correct, there is no book in the world 
that can be understood. Take for example Prescott's Conquest of 
Mexico. Mr. Prescott had a certain meaning which he designed to 
convey in every sentence he wrote. When we read the book we 
put a certain meaning upon his words, and when Mr. Brownson 
reads it he puts a certain meaning upon the words. Now, it is possi- 
ble that in more places than one, an idea may have been expressed 
with some ambiguity, and we may not put the same construction upon 



53 

the words that Mr. B. puts on them, and neither of us the identical 
meaning of the author. Does any sensible man, from this imperfec- 
tion incident to language, draw the conclusion, therefore the Conquest 
of Mexico is a book of riddles. Yet this is Mr. B.'s argument. Put 
it in Mr. Brownson's words : the Conquest of Mexico is nothing to 
us, unless we attach some meaning to it ; and if we attach a false 
meaning to it, then what we take to be the Conquest of Mexico is 
not the Conquest of Mexico. We do not take the Conquest of Mexi- 
co, unless we take it in Mr. Prescott T s sense — in the sense intended 
by him who dictated it. 

But will Mr. B. say the Bible is a more difficult book, and hence 
no parallel can be instituted between it and the book named, or any 
other ? If so, he will involve himself in still greater absurdity. The 
Holy Ghost, he says, dictated the Bible. Now, has God designed 
simply to mock mankind and their wants, by professing to give a 
revelation of his will, when in truth he meant to give them a book of 
incomprehensible riddles ? Dare any prelate of Rome say so — and 
thus charge God with a lie ? Then, if God sincerely intended to do 
what he professed in giving the Bible, the question is simply, is the 
Holy Ghost less able to convey his meaning in words to the com- 
prehension of men, than Mr. Prescott or Mr. anybody else? 

But even were we to admit that the Bible is incapable of being un- 
derstood, the remedy Rome proposes of helping it out of the difficulty 
is. on her own principle, unavailing. Did it never occur to these 
wiseacres, that if men, by putting their own meaning upon the words 
of the Bible, were liable to misunderstand it, the same thing would 
occur in putting their own meaning on the commentary of the Church 
appended to it ? The commentary is nothing unless we attach some 
meaning to it ; and if we attach a false meaning to it, then what we 
take to be the commentary of the Church is not the commentary of 
the Church. We are just where we started. Well, suppose the 
priest, or the Pope, the living teacher explains — the priest's words 
are nothing to us unless we attach some meaning to them ; and if we 
attach a false meaning to them, then what we take to be the explana- 
tion of the priest or Pope is not the explanation. No better off yet. 
Nay, if the reasoning of Mr. Brownson and the Romish Church, — 
for he is not original here, — were true, it would follow, that the 
Creator has rendered it impossible for the human family to communi- 
cate with each other at all; the difficulty is not confined to written 
language, but teaches the impossibility of communicating ideas from 
one to the other at all. The Reviewer says: " The good Doctor is 
troubled with no questionings of this sort." True, no Proiesiant is. 
5* 



54 

troubled with any questionings of this sort — simply because, his 
object being truth, he feels under no obligation to stultify himself or 
his readers. 

Mr. Brownson finds great fault with the Sermon that it should have 
spoken so irreverently of "the worship of the Virgin Mary, and of 
saints and relics ; the doctrines of purgatory, penance, and auricular 
confession; of transubstantiation, and the adoration of the bread;" and 
with a peculiar elongation of face, he says, " we shrink from calling 
the devotion Catholics pay to the blessed Virgin and the saints by so 
harsh a word as c trumpery.' " We wonder that this same instinctive 
reverence for holy things had not made him shrink from calling the 
"Book of God" " a book of riddles, that no one could make anything 
out of, except here and there a portion of it." To join with the infidel 
in slandering the Word of God awakens no compunctions in the con- 
science of this Romish devotee, but the moment the ashes of the meek 
St. Hildebrand, the godly St. Ignatius, or the bigoted persecutor St. 
Michael Ghisleri, (Pius V.) is spoken of, all his tenderness comes forth, 
and he is grievously pained at any want of reverence ! But we can 
answer his question, c: What is the authority for saying this or that is 
trumpery?" without going back with him into the foolish mist that the 
Church of Rome tries to get up about il what is the true sense of the 
Bible ?" There is never any question about the true sense of a book 
upon a subject that it never mentions at all. Nobody ever started the 
question what is the true sense of Herodotus on the subject of steam 
boats, or of Strabo on the British claim to Oregon. Now, the worship 
of dead men and women, purgatory, penance, confession to a priest, 
transubstantiation, and the adoration of a piece of bread, are subjects 
never alluded to in the Bible or discussed at all, any more than the 
power of steam is discussed by Herodotus. Rome does not pretend to 
prove these parts of her faith from scripture, but from her traditions. 
Hence the sense of the Bible has nothing to do with the question. The 
authority for saying these things are il trumpery" is, that being no part 
of the revelation God has given, they must be the inventions of men ; 
and reason teaches that inventions of men which contravene the com- 
mands of God arc trumpery and worse. 



Worship of ihc Virgin Jhary and of Suinis. 
Mr. Brownson has given us a labored argument, occupying several 
pages, to justify the worship of images, relics, &c, but to very little 
purpose. This running directly against a positive precept of the deca* 



55 

logue, and still holding- the Bible to be the Word of God, is a very 
difficult matter. The Reviewer says, " Dr. Potts knows perfectly well 
that Catholics pay supreme worship to God alone, and that they are 
strictly forbiddea by their religion to give that to a creature which is 
due only to God." — p. 25. We do not know where, in the Word of 
God, the Church of Rome gets the authority to divide worship into 
" supreme " and secondary, or a worship less than supreme. The com- 
mand is express: " Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image 
or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth 
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow 
down thyself to them nor serve them." It is remarkable for its particu- 
larity, as though designed especially to meet every attempt at evasion. 
It forbids the making of any likeness of God, of Christ, of the Virgin, 
of saints, of the cross. It forbids every one bowing down to them. 
Nothing is said about worship, supreme or secondary, — which is a 
figment of Romish contriving — but, " thou shalt not bow down thyself 
to them." Now, suppose a man makes an image of the Virgin Mary, 
and prostrating himself before it says : 

ct Remember, O most pious Virgin Mary, that no one ever had re- 
course to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy mediation 
without obtaining relief Confiding then on thy goodness and mercy, I 
cast myself at thy sacred feet, and do most humbly supplicate thee, O 
Mother of the eternal word, to adopt me as thy child, and take upon 
th}'self the care of my salvation. O let it not be said, my dearest 
mother, that I have perished where no one ever found but grace and 
salvation." — Prayer of St. Bernard. 

Will any man possessed of common sense suppose that in this act 
the second commandment of the decalogue, recited above, has not been 
violated ? This prayer, which is especially recommended to the young 
in the prayer book, by a Noia bene appended to it, ascribes almighty 
protection, unfailing help, all prevalent mediation, grace and salvation to 
the Virgin Mary. What more can the sinner, contemplating his salva- 
tion, ascribe to God? Yet Mr. Brownson has the effrontery to say, 
Romanists "are strictly forbidden by their religion to give that to a 
creature which is due only to God." We are at no loss to see why 
Rome has labored so hard to show that the Bible is u a book of riddles" 
without the interpretation of her traditions. And no one can be at a 
loss to see the force of our Saviour's condemnation, Mat. xv. 6, " Thus 
have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradi- 
tion." 

But here is Mr. Brownson's Scriptural authority for the worship of 
the Virgin : " We honor the blessed Virgin, we admit ; for the angel 
Gabriel honored her, when he saluted her 'full of grace;' for God 



56 

himself honored her, when he chose to become her son, and to love and 
obey her as his mother ; and we cannot believe it wrong for us to honor 
whom God and his angels honor;" and, — she, '"by the Holy Ghost de- 
clared that henceforth all nations shall cail her ' Blessed.' — St. Luke i. 
48." pp. 25,26. The reader may be sure that Scripture authorities are 
scarce when the whole idolatrous fabric of Rome rests on two expres- 
sions — "full of grace," and " blessed;" and poor as this support is, the 
first is untrue. The angel did not salute the Virgin "full of grace," 
but ' : chaire, kecharito)ncnc r ' — hail? favored one. The Scriptures teach 
us that it is an honor for any one to be used by God as an instrument 
through whom he accomplishes his purposes in the world; thus he 
honors the minister of the Gospel and the humblest Christian, and it is 
in this sense that the angel calls her 'favored one,' and that she rejoices 
in the thought that after generations will call her ' blessed.' But to 
suppose that we are in duty bound to make images of, and bow down 
and pray to such instruments, even when God has used them for the 
purpose of working a miracle, is absurd, idolatrous, and contrary to 
every precept of God's word. God honored the rod of Aaron, the 
brazen serpent in the wilderness, and even Balaam's ass that reproved 
the " madness of the prophet," working miracles through them as well 
as through the Virgin; and Rome, to be consistent, should make images 
of them and honor them by bowing down and praying to them. 

"Nor," says the Reviewer, "are we willing to regard it as 'trum- 
pery' to honor the saints. We have always supposed that the saints 
have honor in heaven, that God himself loves and honors every saint; 
that to be loved and honored of God is included in the reward of sanc- 
tity." — p. 26. We have always supposed the same, but never thought 
that we were, therefore, at liberty to make images of any or all of the 
departed saints and bow down and pray to them — neither does Rome 
think so. Let an affectionate daughter in the Roman Church make an 
image of her departed mother, who died in all the odour of Romish 
sanctity, and pray to it, and make it her patron saint, and how soon will 
the priest accuse her of idolatry. She must pray to the saints in the 
Roman Calendar. Rome makes the shrines for her Diana, and no one 
must interfere, or place this, her craft, in jeopard)-. Hence, the fact 
that God honors the saints in heaven, does not prove that the peculiar 
Romish honors are to be paid on earth to the saints, for it proves more 
than Rome admits — that all who have gone to heaven are to be wor- 
shipped. 

But again: "May we," says the Reviewer, "request the suffrages 
of those we love, who are still in the flesh, and not the suffrages of 
those who are released from their bondage, and are now in the very 



57 

presence of God % Has the departed saint lost a portion of his faculties, 
or has his heart become callous to the wants of those for whom, when 
he was in the flesh, he would willingly die VI — p- 26. Here, it will be 
perceived, there is no attempt to find any Scriptural warrant for the 
worship of saints. There is no command— there is no example at- 
tempted to be drawn from the Word of God. And yet, if Rome's 
notion of the great advantage and efficacy of the prayers of the Virgin 
and of Martyrs is true, and was known to Paul, it is most singular that 
whilst he said to the Thessalonian and Hebrew Christians, "Brethren 
pray for us," he should never have said, ' ; Oh Mary, Queen of Heaven, 
pray for us" — " Oh St. Stephen, first of martyrs, pray for us." And 
moreover, that neither he nor Pope Peter should ever have thought it 
worth while to throw out any intimation to the Churches they so ear- 
nestly exhorted, that prayers to the saints would be a great advantage to 
them. The silence of the Scriptures is utterly unaccountable on this 
subject, if the notion of Rome be true. 

But, having no Scripture, Mr. B. relies for the support of his doctrine 
on reason. His argument is, if the prayers of the righteous avail whilst 
they are on earth, they must be equally as available, nay, more so, 
when in heaven. The object of prayer is entirely misconceived in this 
argument. To suppose that there is any merit to purchase, or efficiency 
to move the divine council in the prayers of the redeemed, either in this 
world or the next, is absurd ; for it makes God's purposes unsettled, and 
Christ's mediation ineffectual. God has appointed the intercession of 
saints for others here, because of the effect on themselves: It keeps their 
minds on God; it keeps them sensible of their dependance; it keeps 
them anxious about the condition of others for whom they pray; it binds 
Christians and the members of the human family together ; it makes 
them feel continually that they and their friends are indebted to Divine 
grace for everything. Hence God makes prayer the means through 
.which he will communicate his blessings— he first gives them the spirit 
to pray, and then gives the blessing prayed for. But the condition of 
the saint in heaven is entirely different. He is free from sin, from all 
wandering of mind from God, his spiritual vision is rectified, faith is ex- 
changed for sight, and prayer for praise. Angels " rejoice 1 '' over return- 
ing sinners, but contemplating the fullness and sufficiency of the atone- 
ment of Christ, and the efficacy of his intercession,, there is no m ed for 
any prayers in that behalf from them. Hence, whilst reason teaches 
the propriety and great importance of the prayers of saints on earth, it 
equally teaches the absurdity of seeking their prayers in heaven. 

But this is not all, nor the worst. Rome, in appointing the Virgin 
and Saints as mediators and intercessors between God and man, flies in 



58 

the very face of the Word of God, and denies the efficacy of Christ's 
mediation. St. Paul says, 1 Tim. ii. 5, " There is one God. and one 
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." But we have 
already shown in the prayer of St. Bernard, quoted in this article, that 
" grace and salvation" are ascribed to the mediation of the Virgin. 
And from the "Commemoration of St. Gregory the Great," we quote 
the following : " O God, who hast bestowed the rewards of eternal 
blessedness on the soul of thy servant Gregory, grant mercifully that 
we, who are depressed with the w r eight of our sins, may by his prayers 
be delivered." Here, deliverance from sin is ascribed to the prayers of 
Gregory; and the whole Calendar is filled, for every day in the year, 
with these men-made mediators. O how awfully must the judgment 
of God fall upon the contrivers and upholders of a system that thus 
Tobs the blessed Saviour of his glory! "Come out of her, my people) 
that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her 
plagues." — Rev. xviii. 4, 

The contrivance of Rome to justify her idolatry by appealing to the 
affection with which we regard a deceased or absent friend, and pre- 
serve with interest the portrait that reminds us of the lineaments of his 
countenance, and which Mr. B. brings to his aid, is very far fetched, 
and very insufficient for the purpose. The affection for kindred and 
friends belongs to a class of emotions totally different from the venera- 
tion we entertain for God, and holy angels, and " the just made perfect." 
They spring from different sources in the human mind, and their final 
causes are totally different; so that there is no analogy between the 
cases. The whole argument exhibits miserable logic and worse phi- 
losophy, and could never have been resorted to by Mr. B. but beeause 
of the difficulty with which he was pressed. It is very adroit also in 
this justification to ring the changes upon the ambiguous word " honor," 
because it is a term of sufficiently general import to embrace exercises 
towards all classes of persons — we honor God, and we honor our pa- 
rents, and we honor a servant. But the word dulia ) from the Greek 
doulos, a slave or servant, which the Roman Church has employed to 
designate the secondary worship she pays to saints and their images, is 
less equivocal in its meaning. It imports a worship or reverence exer- 
cised by an inferior to a superior class of beings — derived from that 
prostration of the slave before his lordly Eastern master, still common in 
that country. Now, where is the man or woman who would not feel 
degraded by extending the adoration "dulia" to any relative or friend. 
Who ever thinks of making an image of his departed mother, however 
beloved, and prostrating himself before it three times a day, and praying 
to it, Yet this is the dulia that Rome demands for her idol gods. W e 



59 

preserve the portrait of a friend or relative that we may be reminded of 
his personal appearance and the expression of his countenance, as an 
aid to memory; or, that the curiosity of more remote descendants may 
be gratified with seeing what externally their ancestors were. But who 
pretends that the pictures or statues of the Christ, the Virgin, the Saints, 
bear any resemblance to their originals: there is no trace of resemblance 
amongst the pictures themselves; they are pure works of the painter's 
fancy; so that the design must be, and is different in these objects of 
adoration. They are, disguise it as Rome may to Protestants, the Dii 
Mirwrum Gentium of the Papal Roman Pantheon. 



The Worship of Relics. 
Mr. Brownson tells us: " We do not worship c relics.' We regard 
and honor them for what they represent, or the worth to which they 
are related. They are memorials we value and treasure up.'' Again, 
to show the inconsistency of Protestants, he says: " We may preserve 
with affectionate care the coat of Washington, or visit with reverential 
feeling the room where Voltaire penned his blasphemy, or the bed 
where he slept after having reviled the religion of God ; but it is all 
'trumpery,' if the pious Christian preserves the sacred tunic worn by 
the Lord when he tabernacled with men, or finds his devotion quickened 
on beholding it." — p. 27. The Reviewer assumes in this argument, 
that the feeling prompting {he preserver of Romish relics, and that 
which would lead an American to preserve the coat of Washington or 
to visit the chateau of Voltaire is the same ; for this is necessary to make 
his argument of any effect. Well, we have visited Ferney, in common 
with all strangers who go to Geneva, certainly with no u reverential 
feeling" but with the feeling of curiosity. With the same feeling we 
paid, some years since, the necessary amount of coin, and looked upon 
the three skulls in the Cathedral at Cologne, said to be those of the 
three kings or wise men. We were about as much edified by the one 
sight as the other. And had we as convenient an opportunity of look- 
ing upon the coat of Washington we would certainly embrace it, and 
have no doubt with as much edification as in either of the cases above 
specified. Moreover, it is certain that had we the bed-quilt of Voltaire, 
or the three skulls of Cologne, or the coat of Washington, we would 
put any or all of them in our cabinet of curiosities and call the attention 
of our friends to their virtues. Now, the question is, do we, in the 
opinion of Mr. Brownson and his friends, exercise the proper feelings 
for the bones of Cologne? So far from it, that we are aware there is 
not a devoted Papist, who, after reading these lines, will not be ready to 



60 

accuse us of blasphemy in speaking. so lightly of the " three kings." 
And why? Because their bishops and priests have taught them, in 
conformity with the decree of the Council of Trent, " that the holy 
bodies of the holy martyrs and others living with Christ, whose bodies 
were living members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit, and will 
be by him raised to eternal life and glorified, are to be venerated by the 
faithful, since by them God bestows many benefits upon men." The 
same worship dulia is required to be paid the bones that is paid to 
saints. Then how disingenuous is the conduct of Mr. B. and of his 
priestly guides and confederates, in trying to impose upon the Pro- 
testant community, by teaching that the regard they have for the 
relics of the saints is similar to the feeling that leads a Protestant to 
preserve the coat of Washington, or procure a " cane, snuff-box or 
paper cutter .made from the wood of ' Old Ironsides.'" If Mr. 
Brownson is ashamed of this stupid nonsense of worshipping dead 
men's bones and rusty nails and bits of wood, as lie well way be, let 
him say so, and not try to justify himself by belying the testimony of 
his newly embraced Church. 

The language of our Saviour to the woman of Samaria may, with 
perfect propriety, be addressed to the Roman Catholic worshippers of 
relics: "Ye worship ye know not what." It is certain that many 
cords of wood have been sold and worshipped by the devout as parts 
of the true cross ; that tons of nails have been used in the same way 
for the veritable spikes with which his body was fastened to the 
wood 5 and ship loads of bones are now objects of veneration in the 
Churches of Europe, many, of them not having even the merit of 
having belonged to human beings. We have the tunic of the Saviour, 
the thorns, the sponge, and all the minutiae appertaining to the cruci- 
fixion. The country in which the crucifixion occurred was in the 
hands of the enemies of Christianity for centuries after Christ's suf- 
fering, and the most desolating war that ever passed over a country 
occurred about forty years after the event, changing everything save 
the everlasting hills round about Jerusalem. And yet, according to 
Roman traditions, all these minute articles connected with the cruci- 
fixion remain ! 

We have adverted to the relics of the three kings in the magnifi- 
cent Cathedral of Cologne, and can as well use this case as an in- 
stance of this kind of idolatry as any other. For centuries these 
bones have been the principal attraction to the devout along the 
Rhine, and exist to this day an object of worship or curiosity ac- 
cording to the faith of the visitor. We give an extract from our note 
book, written at the time of our visit some four years since : 



61 

" The most remarkable of all the appurtenances of the Cathedral 
is the tomb of the three wise men that came to worship the infant 
Jesus. These relics were presented to Reinold, Archbishop of Co- 
logne, by the Emperor Frederic Barbarossa, after the taking and 
pillage of Milan, in 1170. They are said to have been conveyed by 
Helen, mother of Constantine the Great, from Palestine to Constanti- 
nople ; how they came from the latter place to Milan does not appear; 
however, here they are, and we need not trouble ourselves about 
their migration. The shrine containing these remains is behind the 
high altar, and is a chapel, constructed in the Ionic style. The guide 
first entered and lit up the lamps around the tomb, and then invited 
us in. The coffin occupies the centre of the tomb, and is divided 
into three compartments ; one for each of the skeletons, which are 
supposed to lie side by side. A slide in the head of the coffin being 
raised exhibits the skulls, having gilt crowns decorated with pearls 
resting on their faces ; they are said to have skeletons behind them, 
but of this we cannot testify. The skulls appear remarkably sound, 
and are of a reddish-brown color, looking as if they had been colored 
with something designed to preserve them. The name of each of the 
kings, it appears, has been ascertained, and they are here placed at 
their heads respectively, viz : Caspar, Melchiob, Balthasar. The 
coffin is silver, elegantly wrought and gilt. The fine filagree work 
which ornaments it everywhere is gold, and the front, or head-piece 
of the coffin is said to be solid gold, weighing thirty-two pounds. 
The diamonds that once decorated it have disappeared, but the quan- 
tity of precious stones remaining, topas, rubies, amythists, sapphires 
beryls, pearls, &c, &c, is immense, some of the topas larger than a 
hen's egg." Each unlocking of this tomb costs, if we rightly re- 
member, about two dollars, and we are within bounds when we say? 
that hundreds of thousands have been realized by the owners of these 
remains of " the holy bodies" of the three kings. 

Now, the great advantage Rome has in being the repository of 
traditions is distinctly seen in this case. Without this we should 
never have known that the wise men were kings ; nor that they were 
saints, or believers in the gospel plan of salvation at all ; we should 
never have known what were their names, and especially that they 
vere Germans, as we now strongly suspect from the appellatives by 
which it seems they were known. Moreover, we should never have 
found out, that after they returned "into their own country," the 
East, they came back to Palestine and died, and were buried in some 
convenient place for the Empress Helen to find their bones and im- 
mediately recognize them, three hundred years after their burial, 
6 



62 

The author of " Rome in the Nineteenth Century," says, " they 
show at Rome the heads of St. Peter and St. Paul, encased in silver 
busts set with jewels; a lock of the Virgin Mary's hair, a phial of 
her tears, and a piece of her green petticoat ; a robe of Jesus Christ, 
sprinkled with his blood ; some drops of his blood in a bottle, some of 
the water which flowed out of the wound in his side, some of the 
sponge, a large piece of the cross, all the nails used in the crucifix- 
ion, a piece of the stone of the sepulchre on which the angel sat, the 
identical porphyry pillar on which the cock perched when he crowed 
after Peter denied Christ, the rods of Moses and Aaron, and two 
pieces of the wood of the real ark of the Covenant!" 

This is the arrant foolery that in this century of light and increas- 
ing knowledge Papal Rome is still playing oif upon the world. 
"These are the memorials," says Mr. Brownson, "we value and 
treasure up." These are a part of the idolatrous system of that 
apostate Church. To these bones, this petticoat, this sponge and lock 
of hair, worship is ofFered, and from them miracles of healing expect- 
ed. Some tell us these absurdities belong to a darker age, and Rome 
has since abandoned them. But we have a book written by the 
present Romish Bishop of this diocese, Peter Richard Kenrick, to 
prove that a certain old house, now to be found in or near the town 
of Recanati in La Marca Ancona, Italy, was carried by angels from 
Nazareth to Dalmatia and thence to its present scite ! But to what 
end is this foolery practised ? Well have the fathers of Trent said, 
" by them God bestows many benefits upon men ;" for through these 
relics monks, and priests, and popes, have drawn millions from the 
pockets of their infatuated followers, to enrich themselves and carry 
out their schemes for enslaving the world. But every man of com- 
mon sense and common honesty must feel indignant when an Ameri- 
can, and a descendant of the Puritans — alas !— -with these facts before 
him, attempts to hoodwink his own countrymen, by telling them the 
Church only pays to these relics the respect which you pay to a 
" snuff-box made from the wood of ' Old Ironsides.' " 



Worship of Bread. 
Mr. Brownson, in behalf of his Church, denies that Romanists 
adore the bread in the idolatrous service of the Mass. His words 
are, " the charge that Catholics adore ' the bread,' even Dr. Potts 
must be aware is not true, — not true, even if it were possible for us 
to be mistaken in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. We do 



63 

not adore the bread, for we do not believe there is any bread there. 
What we adore is not what we see with our eyes, what we detect 
with any of our senses, but our blessed Lord himself, whom we be- 
lieve to be, not represented, but concealed under the appearance of bread 
and wine." — p. 28. 

It is to be remembered here by our readers, that Rome's quibble 
about degrees of worship, supreme and secondary, or latria and dulia, 
does not apply to this case. The Council of Trent, in chapter v. of 
the decree concerning " the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist," 
says, ''There is, therefore, no room to doubt, that all the faithful in 
Christ are bound to venerate this most holy Sacrament, and to render 
thereto the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, {latrice 
cultum, qui vero Deo debelur) according to the custom always observed 
in the Catholic Church." Here, then, the worshipper is required to 
offer to the bread the worship " which is due to the true God." We 
give also from the late Bishop England's work on " the Ceremonies 
of the Mass," what Mr. Brownson would call a beautiful extract: 

M Catholics, knowing that the same victim who once offered himself 
in a bloody manner upon Calvary, is now produced upon the holy altar, 
and then in the hands of the. priest offers himself to his Father on be- 
half of sinners, believe that it is a true, proper, and propitiatory sac- 
rifice, and yet not a different one from that of the cross, for it is the 
same victim "offered by the same great high priest. And the identity 
of the priest and of the victim constitutes the identity of the sacrifice. 
[We would have supposed that time and place had something to do 
with the identity of an act, as well as the priest and victim.] The 
difference consists of this, that on Calvary he was first immolated in 
blood, to take away the handwriting of sin and death that stood against 
us : upon the altar the immolated victim is produced under the sacra- 
mental appearance, and mystically slain by showing forth his death, 
in the apparent separation of his body from his blood J and the lamb 
thus placed as slain, is offered to beseech the application of his merits 
specially to those who make the oblation, or on whose behalf it is 
made." — p. 111. Here, then, the priest or "celebrant" has " pro- 
duced upon the altar'''' the real Christ, and makes him the victim in a 
"true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice," every time Mass is cele- 
brated. Because, though the sacrifice of Calvary took away " the 
handwriting of sin and death that stood against us," that sacrifice 
was good for nothing until the Roman priest had "produced" the 
body, soul and divinity of Christ, and offered it a second time " to 
beseech the application of its merits specially to those who make the 
oblation." True, Paul said, Heb. x. 14, "By one offering, he 



64 

(Christ) hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." But what 
of that? That only shows that Paul was no Romanist. And has 
not the Roman Church the right to believe the Bible means anything 
it pleases? — Has she not the right to say, that when the Bible says 
a one offering" it means two, or two hundred offerings ? Away with 
your private interpretation — " the Bible is nothing to us, unless we 
attach some meaning to it ; and if we attach a false meaning to it, 
then what we take to be the Bible is not the Bible." The Church 
has to tell us what the meaning is, and the Church says one means two ! 

But that we may be perfectly sure as to the kind of worship Rome 
requires to be paid to this piece of bread, let us see what is required 
by the Church in the communicant. In the " Instructions and Prayers 
before Communion" the communicant is required to repeat the follow- 
ing " Act of Faith: Is it possible, O my God, that I am about to 
receive thee ! Is it possible that I am to receive that same body 
which was formed in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and 
born in a poor stable J which suffered so many insults, reproaches and 
blasphemies ; which was cruelly scourged, covered with thorns, and 
condemned to the cruel death of the cross, through love for me ! 
Yes, O my God, I firmly believe it, because thou hast said it : For it 
is impossible that thou shouldst deceive me. What other proof, O 
my soul, wouldst thou require of the real and actual presence of your 
Saviour in this adorable sacrament than his own infallible word, 
1 This is my body, this is my blood.' — O Jesus, thou God of truth, who 
hast the words of eternal life, John ch. 6, behold I do openly confess and 
am inwardly convinced that it is thy real body, thy real blood, accom- 
panied with thy soul and thy divinity, together with the eternal 
Father, and the Holy Ghost, who comes to reside in my heart through 
this most adorable sacrament I am about to receive." This goes still 
farther than the Council of Trent or Bishop England, for it here is 
asserted that the communicant receives the body, soul, and divinity 
of Christ, and the eternal Father and Holy Ghost besides. No won- 
der the heathen objected to this form of Christianity because its be- 
lievers first worshipped their God and then ate him, for here the 
whole Trinity is received, not into the heart, for it would be difficult 
to get the substance of Christ's body and blood there, but into the 
stomach. Such, then, is the form of this idolatry and blasphemy 
combined, about which we have been the more particular, that our 
readers may have a distinct view at once of this most atrocious and 
barefaced attempt to impose on the common sense of mankind. 

But Mr. Brownson attempts to avoid the charge of idolatry by 
saying, it is not the bread, " but the blessed Lord himself, whom we 



65 

believe to be, not represented but concealed under the appearance of 
bread and wine," that receives this highest kind of worship. That 
is, a man is no idolator if he worships that which to his senses appears 
to be a piece of bread, provided he believes the real Deity is con- 
cealed under that appearance. Then the same thing must be true, 
if the thing worshipped appears to his senses to be a piece of gold, 
or silver, or wood — for the appearance is nothing — provided he be- 
lieves the real Deity is concealed under that appearance. This argu- 
ment will justify all the idolatry that the world has ever known ; for 
the heathen writers in the early ages of Christianity justified their 
worship with the very same pretext. Maximus Tyrius, a Platonic 
philosopher of the second century, says : " Images are only intended 
to help our memory, a kind of manuduction to the gods, but no more 
like to them than heaven is to the earth." And a few lines after, he 
says, " w<hether men worship God by the art of Phidias, as the 
Greeks do, or by the worship of living creatures, after the manner of 
the Egyptians, or by the worship of rivers, or of fire, as is practised 
by other nations, I condemn not the variety ; let them only under- 
stand, love, and remember him whom they worship." — Diss. 38. 
The Emperor Julian, a zealous advocate for heathenism, as all know, 
says: " He who loves the king, takes pleasure in seeing the picture 
of the king; and he who loves his child, or his father, loves every 
representation of his child, or his father 5 in like manner he who 
loves. the gods, loves every representation of the gods; and, beholding 
their images, secretly fears and reverences them." Again, he says, 
" The images of the gods were placed by our ancestors, as signs and 
symbols of their presence ; not that we should believe them to be 
gods, but that we should worship the gods by giving worship to 
them." — Julian Oper. pp. 537, 539, The reader will perceive this is 
the very reasoning of Mr. Brownson in justification of the worship 
of images, of the Virgin, and of saints, and applies also directly to the 
case in hand. Neither were the philosophers of ancient Greece and 
Rome so stupid as to believe a piece of gold or stone could have life or 
give them any aid ; but they believed that, after the consecration of 
the statue, the Divinity came into and was concealed under the ap- 
pearance of the image, and it was this concealed Deity they worshipped. 
Such was the opinion of Cicero, of Symmachus, and of all the best of 
their writers. In like manner Mr. Brownson believes, that after the 
consecration of the bread the Deity comes into and is concealed under 
the appearance of bread, and it is this consecrated Deity he wor- 
ships. If Maximus of Tyre and the Emperor Julian were idolaters, 
so is Mr. Erownson and every communicant of the Romish Church, 
6* 



66 

Indeed, Mr. Brownson states the case still stronger than this, for" 
he says it is not true " that Catholics adore ' the bread' " — " even if 
it were possible for us to be mistaken in the Catholic doctrine of tran- 
substantiation." That is, if it is only bread and nothing else, and yet 
the worshipper means to worship the Deity, supposing he is conceal- 
ed under the appearance of bread, there is no idolatry. Now, no 
one can doubt the sincerity of many a worshipper of the idols of 
Hindostan and Burmah, and that they really believe that the Deity 
resides in these consecrated images and rivers. Then, they are not 
idolators ; or, according to Mr. Brownson's own showing, the com- 
municants of the Church of Rome are just as much idolators as the 
Hindoos and Burmans of the present day. 

When the Israelites directed Aaron to " make us gods which shall 
go before us ; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out 
of the land of Egypt, we wot not what has become of him," they 
had no idea of having the golden calf in the place of the Jehovah, but 
something that should remind them of Jehovah in the place of Moses 
who had previously executed this office. This is evident from the 
fact that Aaron, when he had built an altar before the idol, " made 
proclamation, and said, To-morrow is a feast to Jehovah." Hence, 
it is plain, that the true God of Israel was worshipped under the ap- 
pearance of the golden calf. Now, did the Lord accept this worship, 
or regard it as idolatry ? Let the inspired narrative, Ex. xxxii., 
answer the question. And so certain as God rejected worship paid 
to him as concealed under the appearance of the gold Aaron fashioned, 
will he reject the worship Rome pays to him as concealed under the 
appearance of the bread her priests fashion. And as he consumed 
those that were called by his name in that day for their idolatry, he 
will consume this apostate Church of our day " by the brightness of 
his coming." Again, we say, in the language of that voice John 
heard from heaven, " Come out of her, my people, that ye be not 
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." 



Rome's Contradictions and Diversity of Faith. 
The infallibility of the Church of Rome is a fundamental point. 
If it is once admitted that she has changed or contradicted herself, 
her authority is gone. Hence we are not surprised that Mr. Brown- 
son should be much offended that the author of the Sermon on the 
Dangers of Jesuit Instruction should have said, previous to the Coun- 



67 

cil of Trent " Councils had dealt very much in formularies, and they 
had defined and changed, affirmed and condemned in so many differ- 
ent ways, that it was no very unusual thing for that to be rank heresy 
in one section of the Church that was orthodox in another," &c. 
This is met by our Reviewer with the bold assertion, " The faith of 
the Church is always and everywhere the same ; and never have in- 
dividuals in one age or one country been authorized to hold what in 
another age or country has been accounted heretical." — p. 28. These 
statements are directly opposed to each other \ now let us see, by a 
simple resort to facts, which is right. 

1. The fourth General Gouncil, held at Chalcedon, A. D. 451, in 
the twenty-eighth canon, grants to the see of Constantinople in gen- 
eral terms, and without restriction or limitation, all the rights, pre- 
rogatives, and privileges, that had ever been granted to, or enjoyed 
by, the see of Rome. Now, compare with this the decree of the 
seventeenth General Council, held at Florence in 1439 : " We define 
that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff have a -primacy over 
the whole world, and that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor 
of St. Peter, the chief of the apostles, and true vicar of Christ, and 
that he is head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all 
Christians ; and that to him in St. Peter was delegated by our Lord 
Jesus Christ full power to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; 
as also is contained in the acts of General Councils, and in the holy 
canons." Here are two General Councils directly opposed 5 the faith 
of Chalcedon is heresy by the decision of Florence. Trent settled 
this point in favor of Florence, of course. 

2. Gregory the Great, in an official letter addressed to the Patriarch 
of Constantinople in the year 594, at a time when the bishop of that 
city was distinguished all over the east by the title of universal 
bishop, says, that title is " vain, ambitious, profane, impious, execrable, 
anti-Christian, blasphemous, infernal, diabolical." " Whom do you 
imitate," says he, " in assuming that arrogant title ? Whom but him, 
w T ho, swelled with pride, exalted himself above so many legions of 
angels, his equals, that he might be subject to none, and all might be 
subject to him ?" It is then the authoritative opinion of this Pope, 
that for any bishop to exalt himself above his brethren, and pretend 
aU other bishops are subject to him, is to imitate the devil. Yet the 
Council of Florence, in the decree just quoted, decided that Pope 
Gregory was a heretic in this, and Trent confirmed the decree of 
Florence. That which was the very jewel of orthodoxy at Rome in 
Gregory's time, is rank heresy now. 

3. Pope Leo I. in a circular addressed to all metropolitans, issued 






63 

in the year 458, requires that persons who have received their bap- 
tism at the hands of a heretic, should be confirmed by the invocation 
of the Holy Ghost, and the imposition of hands ; that they may there- 
by receive the virtue and sanctification of baptism, having received 
nothing of that sacrament before, besides the bare form. Pope Nicho- 
las, 866, in answer to inquiries of Bulgarians, decided that the validi- 
ty of baptism did not depend upon the virtue of the minister, and 
that baptism administered by a Greek impostor, and by a Jew, must 
not be repeated, if they baptised in the name of the Trinity. Here, 
there are two Popes, both giving decisions in their official character 
for the government of the Church, directly opposed. One says, 
baptism by a heretic has nothing but the bare form, the other says it 
is valid. Now, Trent comes in to settle the faith, puts her curse on 
poor Leo, and tells Nicholas that he was wrong too, for there must 
be the " intention to do what the Church does." This is the canon 
of Trent on the subject : " Whosoever shall affirm that baptism, when 
administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention to do what the Church 
does, is not true baptism, let him be accursed." Jerome, one of the 
first of the Fathers in the opinion of Rome, looked upon it as a strange 
paradox, that a man should be made a Christian by one who was him- 
self no Christian. But the Fathers of Trent have decided it is so, 
notwithstanding. 

4. In the year 593, a difference arose between the sees of Con- 
stantinople and Rome, growing out of the trial at Constantinople of 
two presbyters, John, presbyter of the Church of Chalcedon, and 
Anastasius of Isauria. They were found guilty of heresy, and pun- 
ished with great severity. The presbyters withdrew from Constan- 
tinople to Rome, where their cause was re-examined by Gregory the 
Great, and both were absolved. The cause of this discrepancy in the 
judgment of the two leading bishops of the Church is remarkable. 
The first Council of Ephesus was universally received by the Church, 
and the second universally condemned and rejected. But the Church 
of Constantinople received, as the first, that which the Roman Church 
rejected as the second ; and the Roman Church received as the first, 
that which the other rejected as the second. In this both agreed, 
that the doctrine of the first was Catholic, and that of the second 
heretical. But as they did not agree which was the first, and which 
the second; nay, as what was the first with the one, was the second 
with the other, it thence necessarily followed, that what was sound 
doctrine with the one, was rank heresy with the other. Hence, the 
presbyter Anastasius was condemned at Constantinople as a heretic, 



/ 



69 

because he condemned the doctrine of their first Ephesine Council, 
and received that of their second ; whereas he was, on that very 
score, absolved at Rome as a good Catholic. Such difficulties are pe- 
culiarly unfortunate where they occur in different branches of an in- 
fallible Church, and we suspect that our unfledged Romish Reviewer 
had never seen this piece of history, or he would not have pronounced 
so positively, " never have individuals in one age or one country been 
authorized to hold what in another age or country has been accounted 
heretical. " 

5. In 634, Pope Honorius addressed a • letter to the Patriarch of 
Constantinople, in which he declared that he entirely agreed with 
Sergius, the leader of the Monothelites ; and recapitulated the leading 
points of their doctrine, asserting that the contrary had never been 
taught by the Fathers. The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus as- 
sembled a General Council in 680, at Constantinople, to settle the or- 
thodox faith. This Council was attended by one hundred and sixty- 
six bishops, three legates of the Pope and two deputies from his 
Council being present. In the seventeenth session they proposed, . 
and in the eighteenth, held on the 16th Sept., 681, they approved and 
signed the definition or decree of the Council. In this decree they 
anathematized " the impious and execrable doctrine of one will in 
Christ, and one operation, with which the devil had attempted to 
poison the minds, and kill the souls of the faithful, employing for that 
purpose, as his organs, Theodorus of Paran, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul 
and Peter of Constantinople, Honorius of old Rome, Cyrus of Alex- 
andria, and Macarius of Antioch." Here a Pope is anathematized by 

a General Council, and the doctrine delivered, ex cathedra, by him,, 
declared to be impious and execrable, and he a tool of the devil used 
to poison the faithful ! 

6. The conflicting and opposite decisions of Romish Councils on 
the subject of image worship, constitutes another very remarkable 
chapter in the history of this infallible Church. The ancient Council 
of Elvira, which sat during the reign of Constantine, and therefore in 
the early part of the fourth century, strictly enjoined, that neither 
paintings nor images, representing the person whom we adore, should 
be introduced into Churches. In 754, the Emperor assembled a 
Council at tbo palace of Hiera, opposite Constantinople, to settle 
this question. Three hundred and thirty-eight bishops assembled. 
In the decree of faith they say, we, " adhering to the word of God, 
to tlie definitions of the six preceding Councils, to the doctrine of the 
approved fathers, and the practice of the Church in the earliest times, 
pronounce and declare, in the name of the Trinity, and with on$ 



70 

heart and mind, that no images are to be worshipped ; that to worship 
them, or any other creature, is robbing God of the honor that is due 
to him alone, and relapsing into idolatry. Whoever, therefore, shall 
henceforth presume to worship images, to set them up in the Churches, 
or in private houses, or to conceal them, shall be degraded, if a bish- 
op, a priest, or a deacon ; and if a monk, or a layman, excommuni- 
cated and punished, as guilty of a breach of God's express command, 
and the imperial laws:*' (that is, of the very severe laws issued by 
the Christian Emperors against the worshippers of idols.) The fourth 
canon anathematized all who should introduce new words, or new- 
coined distinctions (of absolute and relative worship, of supreme and 
inferior, of latria, dulia, and hyperdulia, Sec.,) to elude or subvert the 
determinations of the present holy and oecumenical synod. Now, it 
was heresy to worship images. 

In 787 the second Council of Nice was assembled, through the 
agency of the Empress Irene. This Council was first assembled at 
Constantinople, and its sessions were concluded there. Three hun- 
dred and sixty-seven bishops were present. In the seventh session, 
held on the 13th October, they came to the definition of faith ; it was 
decreed that images, not only of Christ, but of the Virgin Mary, of 
the holy angels, and of all the martyrs and saints, should be set up in 
places of worship, on the highways, and in private houses ; that they 
should be used on the sacred utensils, to put us in mind of those whom 
they represented ; that they should be worshipped and adored, not 
with that adoration and worship that was due to God alone, but with 
an honorary worship ; and, lastly, that all who disapproved or op- 
posed such a worship as unlawful, should be deposed, if ecclesiastics 
or bishops, and excommunicated, if monks or laymen. Now, it be- 
came heresy to oppose image worship. 

In 794 the Emperor Charlemagne assembled a Council, with the 
approbation of the Pope, at Frankfort on the Main. Three hundred 
bishops from France, Italy and Germany, and probably from England, 
assembled. Two bishops attended as legates of the Pope. In the 
second canon, they say : u The question concerning the new synod of 
the Greeks, that was held at Constantinople, about worshipping ima- 
ges, was then debated ; in that Council it was written that they should 
be anathematized, who did not pay that service or adoration to the 
images of the saints which they paid to the divine Trinity ; hereupon 
our most holy fathers, refusing by all means to pray to them, or pay 
them service, despised and unanimously condemned it."' Now, again, 
it was heresy to worship images. The second Council of Nice, as it 
1$ now called, is here said to have been held in Constantinople, from 



71 

the circumstance before stated ; it was commenced and closed in that 
city, though its deliberations were held at Nice, in Bithynia. Trent 
settled the matter of faith in favor of Idolatry; and it is held, at this 
day, to be heresy to oppose image worship. 

We might multiply cases of similar contradictions, to almost any 
extent ; for nothing can be more supremely ridiculous, to any one 
acquainted with the history of the Church of Rome, than her claims 
to infallibility, but the length of this article forbids further quotations. 
In the cases etated we have councils contradicting and anathematizing 
councils and Popes; Popes contradicting Popes; that which is heresy 
in one age made orthodoxy in another; and the same doctrine heretic- 
al or orthodox at the same time, according to the section of the church 
in which the holder of the opinion happened to be. When the great 
reformation commenced, and the decrees of the councils and the 
decisions of Popes were quoted against Rome, it became necessary 
for her to determine what her own faith was, and which of these 
councils she was to defend. The digest of doctrines turned out by 
the Council of Trent, though done at the expense of everything like 
consistency, saved her from imoending ruin, by enabling her forces 
to see around what articles of faith they were to rally. And we may 
fairly retort on Mr. Brownson his own language, — for any one to say 
that, the faith of Rome was settled before the Council of Trent closed 
its sessions, in 1564, "betrays either an ignorance or a recklessness 
which is by no means creditable to him who says so." 



Rome's Explanation of the Trinity. 
Exception is taken, in the " Sermon on the Dangers of Jesuit 
Instruction," to Rome's explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
as found in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, first, because it 
makes " a love of charity " the Holy Ghost ; second, because it 
makes the Son of God a representation of an idea in the mind of 
God; and, tliird, because it denies the humanity of Christ. Mr. 
Brownson's defence of the Catechism, so far as he has attempted 
any, makes the matter still worse. It is in vain, in this case, that 
he resorts to the " unknown tongue," in which Rome delights so 
much, and lugs in the original Latin of the Catechism, seeing the 
sermon quotes from the authorized translation of Rome, which, 
being infallible, is surely as good as the original Latin. Neither 
does it avail, in this defence, to say : " If the Doctor has any 






72 

doubts as to the soundness of our faith, in these respects, in which 
he seeks to impugn it, we refer him to the Athanasian Creed, which 
he knows is authoritative for all Catholics." — p. 32. The Doctor also 
knows that the teachings of the Council of Trent are authoritative 
for all Catholics. Now, when the Council contradicts the Athana- 
sian Creed, which are we to believe is the true doctrine of Rome? 
In a Church, whose teachings are infallible, it does not answer to 
say, if we fell into an error here, we are right in another place. 
The sermon expressly states: "It is true that in other places Rome, 
in her teaching, presents a more sound view of these doclrines, if 
we rightly understand her words ; but when these teachings are 
coupled with the above authorized explanations, doubt, to say the 
least, is cast over the whole." — p. 7. The question is, how comes 
it that rank heresy is taught concerning the Trinity in the author- 
ized standards of Rome ? 

The statement of the Fathers of Trent, to which the first exception 
is taken, is the following: "A love of charity in both, [the Father and 
the Son,] entirely the same and equal, which is the Holy Ghost, pro- 
ceeding from the Father and the Son, connects the begetting and the 
begotten by an eternal and indissoluble bond." Mr. Brownson says: 
" The objection to the first extract is, that the Holy Ghost is said to 
be the ' love of charity' — charitatis amor $ but why this is objection- 
able the preacher does not tell us, and we do not know. The Father 
loves the Son with an eternal and infinite love, and the Son loves the 
Father with an eternal and infinite love, and from their mutual love 
'proceeds infinite and Eternal Love, which is the Holy Ghost." Again: 
" The Catechism merely terms the Holy Ghost, in plain English, 
Charity, or most perfect love, proceeding from the charity or most 
perfect love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for the Father. 
This is the worst that can be made of it. But what is there objec- 
tionable in this?" — pp. 29, 30. We are not surprised that an ex-minis- 
ter of the Unitarian Church should see nothing objectionable in this, 
whilst we are perfectly satisfied that every real Trinitarian will see 
in it a distinct denial of the personality, if not the very existence, of 
the Holy Ghost. Now, if Rome be as orthodox on this doctrine as 
is stated, it is her first duty to repudiate the heresy found in her 
Catechism; and her second, to make her champion recant, or throw 
him over the wall to his former friends, the Unitarians. This we 
can safely promise, that if teachings similar to the above can be found 
in the writings or preaching of any one in our branch of the Church, 
upon his being pointed out, he shall be arraigned before his peers, 
and. if found guilty, excommunicated, as denying essential truth. 



73 

The second exception to the explanations of the Catechism, Mr. 
Brownson meets by saying, the extract is not fairly made, because 
"the Catechism of the Council of Trent is designed, mainly, to 
guide, direct and assist pastors in the instruction of their flocks. 
It not only lays down what is of faith, but suggests the explanations 
which theologians adopt to enable the mind to conceive them with 
less difficulty." — p. 31. A very marvellous explanation! Does the 
Reviewer mean to say that the explanation which the theologian 
gives, to enable the mind to conceive a matter of faith, is of less im- 
portance than the matter of faith itself? Will not the thing believed 
be according to the conception obtained from the explanation? The 
matter of faith here is the personality of the Son and his eternal 
generation. 1'ome says to her pastors, explain that doctrine in this 
way: "As the mind, in some sort, looking into and understanding 
itself, forms an image of itself, which theologians express by the term 
'word,' so God, as far, however, as we may compare human things to 
divine, understanding himself", begets the eternal Word." But, the 
Catechism proceeds to say, " it is better to give no explanation about 
it, but simply contemplate what faith proposes, and, in the sincerity 
of our souls, believe and confess that Jesus Chrisf" is true God and true 
man." &c. This is a very bungling business. The Fathers of Trent 
first tell pastors how to explain the doctrine, and then tell them it is 
better not to explain it at all. But, suppose a pastor tak es the first ad- 
vice of the Council, and tells his flock that the manner of the eternal 
generation is thus : as a man looking into his own mind and under- 
standing an idea that is there, expresses that idea by a word which is the 
image of the idea, so God, "understanding himself, begets the eternal 
word," what notion will the flock get other than that the Son is the 
image of an idea in the D vine Mind? Suppose the flock receive 
the explanation of the pastor, or, rather, of an infallible Council, and 
are thus led to deny the personality of the Son, as they had previously 
been taught to deny the personality of the Spirit, what then? Why, 
the Athanasian Creed says, that flock "cannot be saved." But to all 
t this our new Unitarian defender of the Roman Catholic faith says ; 
"The idle objection of the preacher is not worth answering." 

The third exception taken by the Serm m is to Rome's explanation 
of the manner of Christ's birth. The Catechism of Trent says: "As 
the rays of the sun penetrate, without breaking or injuring in the least 
the substance of glass, after a like, but more incomprehensible manner, 
did Jesus Christ come forth from his mother's womb without injurv to 
her maternal virginity, which, immaculate anl perpetual, forms the 
just theme of our eulogy." "The third objection will vanish," says 



74 

Mr. B., "the moment the preacher shall learn to distinguish between 
conception and parturition. The illustration is brought to enable us to 
conceive the possibility of the birth of our Lord without damage to the 
virginity of his mother, not to teach the silly heresy the sagacious Doc- 
tor deduces from it." — p. 31. The Reviewer is truly sagacious if he 
can conceive of a conception and parturition in which the mother has 
nothing more to do with the thing born than the glass has with the rays 
of light that pass through it, and yet the child be in any sense her seed. 
If Mary's perpetual virginity is to be preserved, it is just as necessary 
she should have nothing to do with the conception, as with the 
parturition of the child. The doctrine of Rome makes Christ's birth 
the simple miraculous passage of one substance through another sub- 
tan ce; nothing more, and nothing less; and hence denies, by necessary 
inference, the humanity of Christ, which our Unitarian reviewer styles 
a "silfy heresy." The Scriptures tell us ; it is the seed of the woman that 
shall bruise the serpent's head. Paul tells us, Heb. ii., 14, '-Foras- 
much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also 
himself likewise took part of the same;" and in verses 16, 17, "For 
verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the 
seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be 
made like unto his brethren." But Rome says the Bible is all wrong; 
he was most unlike his brethren: slipped into the world like light 
through glass, leaving his reputed mother a perpetual virgin. 

This doctrine of the perpetual virginity and the immaculate concep- 
tion, which figure so largely in all the devotional books of Rome, it will 
be perceived, is no harmless error. It is not only absurd in itself, 
but leads to dangerous errors in reference to the person of Christ. 
The whole thing is an invention of men, utterly contrary to the plain 
teaching of Scripture. In the close of the first chapter of Matthew, it is 
said of Joseph, that he " took unto him his wife, and knew her not till 
she had brought forth her first-born son." Again, in Matthew xii., 46, 
"While he yet talked to the people, behold his mother and his bretl.ren 
stood without, desiring to speak with him." Also, in John vii , mention 
is made of his brethren, and of the fact of their not believing in his 
divine mission, as being a remarkable circumstance. No other infer- 
ence can be drawn from these passages, than that Joseph and Mary 
became the head of a numerous family. Rome, to serve her own pur- 
poses, has deceived, and still deceives, her followers upon this subject. 



75 



The Rule of Faith. 
It is said in the Sermon Reviewed : " There is nothing" more im- 
portant, in this inquiry into the opinions of the instructors of our chil- 
dren, than what is the rule of faith held by them. The motto of Pro- 
testants, since the dawn of the reformation, has been 'the Bible alone.' 
The moment this is departed from, we open the flood-gate to all manner 
of error." — p. 7. Whenever we cease to require "thus saith the 
Lord," for every part of our faith, we accept "thus saith corrupt, fal- 
lible, prejudiced man," for our guide, or "thus saith the church." But 
what is the church? At best a party composed of partially sanctified 
men, still liable to prejudice, to be swayed by ambition or self-interest, 
still with much remaining corruption. Hence we are exposed to all 
manner of error. But Mr. Brownson denies that "the Bible alone" is 
the Protestant's rule of faith. He says: "The pretensions of Protestants 
in this respect are arranL nonsense or rank hypocrisy, with which they 
humbug themselves or seek to humbug others. Where, in the Bible 
alone, does this Presbyterian Doctor find his doctrine of infant baptism? 
his obligation or his right to keep the first day of the week, instead of 
the seventh, as the Sabbath day? — nay, his doctrine of the Trinity itself? 
Separate the Bible from the commentary on it, furnished by the belief 
and practice of the church in all ages, leave merely the naked text, 
with grammar and lexicon, and there is not a man living who can main- 
tain any consistent system of doctrines from it without doing violence to 
its letter and its spirit. It would be a book of riddles, and no one could 
make anything out of it, except here and there a portion of it." — p. 32. 
If this be true, there is no rule of faith in the world. For the Protestant 
Church has never given any rule but the Bible; and no man who re- 
flects, and is acquainted with the lives of the Popes and the composition 
of the Roman general councils, could for one moment consent to com- 
mit the keeping of his faith to their hands. The violence and strife 
for power, which has ever characterized their councils, has shewn that 
the Holy Spirit was not there. 

But the objection that the Bible is unintelligible, ¥a book of riddles," 
we have already shewn, by the argument redudio ad absurdum, is 
untrue.* Mr. Brownson's argument, as previously stated, would prove 
not merely that the Bible cannot be understood, but that no book can be 
understood; nay more, that there is no way in which one mind can 
convey its ideas to another. What is said of doctrines held by Protes- 
tants, which they do not get from the Bible, is untrue, and, we were 
about to add, as Mr. B. well knows — but perhaps not. He may be 

• See pp. 52, 53. 



76 

giving here his own experience when a Unitarian preacher — but he 
should be careful how he "measures other people's corn by his half 
bushel." Presbyterians defend their doctrines from "the Bible alone," 
as he ought to know. 

When Mr. Brownson charges Protestants with humbugging them- 
selves, or seeking to humbug others, by making the Bible their rule of 
faith, he should have reflected that he charges Christ and the prophets 
with the same. To the Jews the Saviour said: "Ye have not his word 
abiding in you — search the Scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have 
eternal life. " — John v., 38, 39. When the rich man, in the story 
Christ told of Lazarus, requested that something additional to the Bible 
should be sent to his brethren — the testimony of a saint — Abraham said: 
"They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." — Lukexvi., 
29. When our Saviour conversed with the disciples, on their way to 
Emmaus, it is said: "Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he ex- 
pounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." 
— Luke xxiv., 27. Though himself the divine teacher, he makes the 
Bible alone the Rule of Faith. So Isaiah viii., 20, says to Israel, con- 
cerning those who professed to be teachers: " To the law and to the 
testimony : if they speak not according to this word, it is because there 
is no light in them." Nay, says Mr. B , Moses and the prophets, the 
law and the testimony, is all "a book of riddles," no man living can get 
any consistent system of doctrines there. Christ and Isaiah do but 
"humbug themselves, or seek to humbug others." 

When our Saviour was in the world, he found the Jewish Church in 
precisely the same condition, in regard to the Rule of Faith, in which 
the Roman Church is now. They had added to the inspired books, 
the decisions of their great Council, the Sanhedrim, and also the opin- 
ions of their learned teachers, which were their traditions ; and these 
they accounted of equal authority with the inspired books themselves. 
They used in their justification the same argument that Mr. B. now 
uses : the Old Testament is, " in itself considered, a dead letter, and 
cannot speak till made to speak by some living authority ;" but where 
is that living authority to be found, unless it be in a General Council, 
and in the writings of the fathers ? This argument of the Jews, Rome 
is compelled to admit as sound, for it is her own. Well, what did 
Christ think of it? He said to them, "Thus have ye made the com- 
mandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites! 
well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto 
me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart 
is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doo* 
trines the commandments of men." — Mat. xv. 6-9. 



77 

Mr. Brownson sn.ys : « The Bible alone is not and cannot be the rule 
of faith. A rule of faith is that by which controversies concerning faith 
may be decided. But the Bible alone cannot decide controversies ; for 
it is, in itself considered, a dead letter, and cannot speak till made to 
speak by some living- authority ; and because nearly all the controversies 
which arise, are controversies concerning what is the faith as contained 
in it." — p. 33. All this is the merest nonsense that a man could pen. 
The reason the Bible cannot decide controversies, here stated, is, because 
it cannot talk itself without somebody reads it. Well, that is true con- 
cerning every constitution under the sun, and every statute book. But, 
in the case of the Bible, according to our Reviewer, if A. B. and C, 
being private persons, read it, it don't talk yet, but if the Pope, or the 
prelates of a General Council read it, it begins to talk immediately. 
Now, why does it speak in the latter case, and not in the former ? If 
it speaks at all, as we both agree it is the Word of God, it will speak 
with authority. If Mr. B. says it is because the Holy Spirit that in- 
dited the Word is with the Pope and Councils, Protestants claim the 
very same thing for A. B. and C, and every man who reads the Bible 
with a sincere desire to know God's will. There is some sense con- 
tained in the words of which the Bible is composed, or there is not. If 
there is no sense, then the Creator has imposed upon his creatures^ by 
professing to give them a revelation of his will, when in reality he gave 
them a book of unintelligible nonsense. But if there is a sense in the 
words, a man possessing equal capacity with the Pope and his prelates, 
can get it out just as well as they can. Such was the opinion of our 
Saviour, when he said to the Jews, who were neither Popes nor pre- 
lates, but mere men, and unconverted too, " Search the Scriptures" — 
what nonsense to send them to a book that would not let its meaning out 
to them. He should have said, wait till Peter is appointed Pope, and 
then he will read the Bible and tell you what it means! 

But Mr. Brownson says, the Bible cannot be a rule of faith, because 
controversies arise about what is the faith contained in it. Then the 
constitution of the United States is no rule in our government, for there 
have been controversies about its meaning ever since its adoption, and 
the country is divided into several great parties now upon the proper 
interpretation of that instrument. And Mr. B., during his brief politi- 
cal career, discussed these points with all the ardor and dogmatism pe- 
culiar to him, without once suspecting that the existence of controversies 
about the meaning of the constitution destroyed it as a rule. Contro- 
versies daily arise about the meaning of the laws in the statute book of 
every State. Nay, there never was a rule in politics or morals laid 
down in our world, about which there were not differences of opinion. 
7* 



78 

He wants, first, a statute book, and then a " living authority" to make 
everybody look at it in the same light. This is impossible. Men's 
minds differ as much as their countenances; they are influenced by local 
circumstances, early training, habits of association, bodily temperament, 
and a thousand other things that make them see the same truth in differ- 
ent lights — hence, perfect agreement is impossible. In governments, 
courts are established to settle conflicting interests that arise from 
this source and from man's cupidity. But all a Supreme Court does, 
is to say to A., our opiniou is that the property you claim belongs to 
B. A 's faith is not bound by the opinion, and he may still believe and 
persuade as many as he can, that his opinion is right and the court is 
wrong. But not so with the Supreme Court of Rome. It says to A., 
you must believe as we do about the meaning of the statute book. And 
if A. says I can't — conscience forbids it — the court says, chain him to a 
stake and kindle a fire around him, he must be put to death for his ob- 
stinacy. This is the u living authority" Mr. B. is laboring now to in- 
troduce amongst us. 

The simple .truth in regard to the Rule of Faith as held by Protes- 
tants, is, that God has given to man, in the Old and New Testaments, 
the revelation of his will. It is a book written in plain, concise, intelli- 
gible language. The subjects are treated with as much clearness as 
their nature will admit; and those which relate to man's duty and the 
plan of salvation, are su ted to the humblest capacity. God created man 
with rational powers. He is capable of understanding truth when 
clearly stated. God knew the character of the mind he had created, 
and adapted his revelation to its capacity. Hence he requires of right, 
that man shall exercise his mind in understanding the rule he has re- 
vealed. Now, that God gave his word to be the rule of faith and life, 
is not only the declaration in express terms, some of which have been 
already quoted, but the whole book assumes this to be the object from 
one end to the o'her. God holds man accountable for the use he makes 
of his understanding, as well as of every other power he possesses. He 
may refuse to read — he may read under prejudice — he may blind his 
mind — he may turn over the whole to a priest, and Ci pin his faith to his 
sleeve;" but the giver of the rule holds him accountable at his bar. 



The Rule of Faith. 
Protestants hold, that "the Scriptures of the Oi J and New Testaments 
are the word of God, the only infallible Rule of Faith and Practice." 
This, we have seen in our last article, Mr. Brownson says is all humbug 



79 

and nonsense; the Bible never was and never can be the Rule of Faith 
for anybody. Well, Mr. B. agrees with us that there is a Rule of Faith 
somewhere, and we are a little surprised at his modesty in not telling us 
where and what it is. It must be something infinitely better than u the 
Bible alone." and not chargeable with humbug and nonsense — some- 
thing that speaks in such plain language as to forbid the possibility 
of all misunderstanding and misinterpretation — something that makes 
everybody think precisely alike. What is itf Though Mr. B. has 
not enlightened us upon the subject, the Council of Trent has given us 
the important information, which we find in a condensed form in the 
Creed of Pope Pius IV., published in December, 1564, and which is 
considered in every part of the world as an accurate and explicit sum- 
mary of the Roman Catholic faith. We quote from an authorized 
translation of the creed, found in one of their Books of Devotion. The 
capitals and italics are their own, 

" I most stedfastly admit and embrace ApostoTical and ecclesiastical 
Traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church. 

"I also admit the holy Scriptures, according to that sense; to which 
our holy Mother, the Church, has held, and does hold, to which it be- 
longs to Judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures: 
neither will 1 ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to 
the unanimous consent of the Fathers" 

" I ac know led ore the Holy. Catholic, Jlpostolic Roman Church, for 
the Mother and Mistress of all Churches; and I promise [acjuro* and 
swear] true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, 
Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. 

" I likewise undoubtedly receive and profess all other things deliver- 
ed, defined, and declared by the Sacred Canons, and General Councils, 
and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent" 

Here is the luminous mass ! ! 

Suppose a plain Western man, famous as such men are for inde- 
pendence and hard sense, should say to Mr. Brownson, " Well, as 
the Bible I have been accustomed to use is all humbug and nonsense, 
and not the Rule, will you be so kind as to tell me what is ?" " Cer- 
tainly," says Mr. B. M First, The unwritten Apostolical and Ec- 
clesiastical Traditions; Second, The Scriptures with the Apocrypha, 
as contained in the Latin Vulgate ; Third, The true sense of these 
as the holy Mother Church has held and now holds ; Fourth, The 
Fathers from Apostolical times down, and mind, it must be their 
unanimous consent; Fifth. The opinions of all the Popes, past, pres- 
ent, and to come ; Sixth, The Sacred canons, containing the observ- 
ances and constitutions of the Church ; Secenth, All the Decrees 



* These words are in the original Latin, but thought, we presume, too strong for Repub- 
licans, and hence omitted by our American Archbishop. 



80 

of all General Councils. That is the only true Rule of Faith." 
" Whew," says the Western man, " Stranger, is it a big book? 
Where can I get it ? Do you carry one in your pocket, just to let 
me see ?" " Ah," says Mr. Brownson, " you are a very ignorant 
man. Part of it is not written yet ; and of that which is written, 
part has never yet been brought over the waters from the old country ; 
and if what is written were all brought together, it would make more 
books than you could haul with your ox team." 

The reader will perceive, by comparing the above summary with 
our extract from the Creed, (and may further satisfy himself by re- 
ferring to the Decrees of the Council of Trent) that this precious 
mass of perverted Scripture and rubbish is the Rule of Faith of the 
whole Roman Church, and is placed in contrast with that of the Pro- 
testant, as so much plainer and safer. We ask your patience while 
we turn over briefly its several parts, that we may form some idea 
what the musty heap contains. 

First. The Roman Catholic stedfastly admits and embraces "Apos- 
tolical and Ecclesiastical Traditions." For an explanation of their 
traditions, when we turn to the Decree of the Council of Trent, we 
are informed that " this truth and discipline (meaning the gospel) are 
contained both in written books and in unwritten traditions, which 
have come down to us, either received by the Apostles from the lips 
of Christ himself or transmitted by the hands of the same Apostles, 
under the dictation of the Holy Spirit." That is, the conversations, 
sermons and directions, spoken by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, have 
been told over and over, from one Pope to another, and from one 
bishop to another, for eighteen centuries, and are now in a pure, una- 
dulterated state, in the possession of the Romish Church. A state- 
ment which, as it requires us to believe a miracle, no sane mind can 
receive without an express declaration from God that it is so, or that 
the person asserting that he is the keeper of such truth should him- 
self work a miracle in attestation of his declaration. 

Second. The Roman Catholic says : " I also admit the Holy Scrip- 
tures" These form a part of the Rule it is true, but much the most 
inconsiderable part, and these held under such circumstances as ut- 
terly precludes their being any guide. With their Scriptures are 
included the Apocryphal books, never received as Scripture by the 
Old Testament Church, and the writers of which did not themselves 
profess to be inspired. Further, though these Holy Scriptures were 
written orignally in Hebrew and Greek, the Council of Trent rejects 
the original, and makes a Latin translation, called the Vulgate, the 
copy that " shall be held as authentic, in all public lectures, disputa- 



81 

tions, sermons and expositions," and declares " that no one shall dare 
or presume to reject it, under any pretence whatsoever." Thus the 
book indited by the Holy Ghost is rejected, and Rome's translation 
substituted. 

Third. The meaning of these Scriptures is to be "according to 
the sense, to which our holy Mother, the Church, has held, and does 
hold." No individual member of the Roman Church dare say what 
the Bible, or any text in it, means. It belongs to the Church to judge 
of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture. But how shall he 
find out what the Church says it means ? What is the Church ? Is 
it the whole of the members ? Then he can never get any interpre- 
tation. Is it the whole priesthood ? He is no better off. Is it the 
prelates ? Is it the General Councils ? or is it the Pope ? The 
Fathers of Trent do not say ; the Church is not defined in their acts j 
and nobody knows — nor does Rome intend that any one ever shall 
know. 

Fourth. Then, as the next part of Rome's Rule, comes in the 
Fathers. "Neither will I ever take and interpret them (the Scrip- 
tures) otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the 
Fathers ." Here is another difficulty. Who does Rome mean by the 
Fathers? Of the scores of ancient writers in the Christian Church, 
on heathenism, on Gnosticism, on Arianism, on Peligianism, on the 
doctrine of one will, &c, &c, which does Rome mean to select ? 
She has never told, and never will. The writings of the earlier 
fathers are in fragments, as they have come down to our times. Often 
it is very doubtful what they mean. These writings have been 
grievously interpolated, and it is impossible to say with certainty 
which part was written by them. But the unanimous consent is re- 
quired ! Whilst it is certain that there never was an age in which 
there was anything approaching to unanimity amongst these doctors 
and teachers. Augustine, Chrysostom and Ambrose, with all the 
ancient fathers, held that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original 
sin, which Trent denies. Melito of Sardis, Origen, Cyril of Jerusa- 
lem, Gregory Nazianzen, St. Hilary, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Rufinus 
and Jerome, fall under the anathemas of Trent in their opinion of the 
canon of Scripture. Then how can unanimity be obtained ? and yet, 
without this, Rome has no Rule of Faith, and the Scriptures can 
never be interpreted. 

Fifth. The Roman Catholic also "promises and swears true obe- 
dience to the Bishop of Rome." This oath binds the obedience of the 
subject to all opinions officially expressed by any one who ever has 
held that office, or ever shall hold it. There are two hundred and 



82 

fifty-four Popes recognized by the present Pope as his predecessors. 
But if any of these were not canonical ly ordained, they were not 
Popes. Yet this is a question no mortal can decide. There have 
been twenty-nine schisms dividing the Church into different heads J 
which were true Popes and which anti-Popes in these divisions? 
The mode of electing a Pope has been fundamentally changed thirty 
times. How do we know there has been a right Pope since the first 
change ? At the time of the Council of Constance there were three 
Popes all reigning at once ; which was right ? " From John VIII. to 
Leo IX., a space of one hundred and fifty years, there were fifty 
Popes pronounced by their own historians to have been monsters of 
iniquity. John XII. was convicted by a Roman Synod of blasphemy, 
perjury, profanation, impiety, simony, sacrilege, adultery, incest, con- 
stupration and murder. Boniface VII. is called by Cardinal Baronius, 
a thief, a miscreant, a murderer." Stephen VII. is called by Baronius, 
" the atrocious;" he says, " he entered the fold like a thief, and died 
by the halter." Benedict IX. became Pope at ten years of age. Of 
him Pope Victor II. said, "he was rather a successor of Simon 
Magus than of Simon Peter." That " his life was so corrupt, de- 
praved and horrible, that he would never attempt the writing of it." 
Gregory VII. is pronounced by Cardinal Bruno and the Councils of 
Worms and Brescia, guilty of simony, sacrilege, magic, sorcery, 
treason, impiety, fornication, adultery, heresy, perjury and murder. 
John XXIII. has come down to us, black with every crime and vil- 
lany, proved upon him by the General Council of Constance. Alex- 
ander VI., by the general consent of historians, made Rome the sink of 
filthiness, prostitution, rapine and blood, and was himself the horror 
and execration of Europe. This list could be greatly enlarged. Such 
are the men, if found to be canonical Popes, whose opinions are to be 
placed on a level with the holy Scriptures, as constituting part of the 
Rule of Faith. 

Sixth. The Roman Catholic further promises undoubtedly to "re- 
ceive and profess all other things delivered, defined and declared by 
the Sacred Canons.'''' What are they ? The canons of the Greek 
Church formed the basis of the Roman code. About the beginning 
of the sixth century the code of Denys le Petit, with the Decretals of 
Popes, from Siricius to Anastasius, became the body of the Canon 
Law to the eleventh century. But so great had become the confusion 
and discrepancy, that in 1151 it was found necessary to have a digest, 
and Gratian published his " Concordance of Discordant Canons" — 
this was henceforth the foundation of the Code of Rome. The De- 
cretals of Popes, from 1150 to Gregory IX., 1229, was then added as 



83 

a second part. In 1297, Boniface VIIT. continued his collection of 
Decretals to his own times. John XXII. added the constitutions of 
Clement V., his predecessor, in five books, which he called Clemen- 
tines. Subsequently were added twenty constitutions of his own, 
under the name of Extravagants. This is the precious mass of rub- 
bish entering into the Rule of Faith, under the title u Corpus Juris 
Canonici." 

Seventh. The Roman Catholic also receives and professes all that 
has been delivered, defined and declared by General Councils. How 
many Councils were general, in the Roman sense, has never been 
determined. Whether any dependance can be placed upon the de- 
crees now exhibited as genuine, is greatly doubted ; the different 
branches of the Church, in the early time, accused each other of the 
most shameful forgeries and alterations, and no means now exist for 
deciding the matter. 

Here, then, is that beautiful, simple, plain guide to the unlettered 
man, who desires to know the will of God and what his duty is. 
There is no humbug or nonsense about this ; no, not a bit of it. This 
is the rule Mr. Brownson and his Romish coadjutors propose and 
laud in the place of the Protestant's Rule, "the Bible alone," and 
every man's own judgment for the interpretation. But does Mr. 
Brownson suppose himself that any man could get a knowledge of his 
duty out of this written and unwritten contradictory mass ? Not at 
all. Rome never intended anybody should understand it. The in- 
tention was to destroy God's rule, without giving any other. Then 
Holy Mother Church becomes the lawgiver, sits a despot over the 
consciences of men, and tells them what she pleases for the rule. 
The Pope, with the bishops and priests for his subalterns, becomes 
God, " sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself that he is 
God." 



Rome pronounces the Apocryphal Books inspired. 

The Council of Trent decreed, that Tobit, Judith, the additions to the 
Bock of Eslhzr, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch with the Epistle of 
Jeremiah, the Son? of the Three Children, the Story of Susannah, the 
Story of Bel and the Dragon, and the First and Second Books of Macca- 
bees, are to be received with equal piety and veneration with the 
Word of God. This is making Holy Scripture by wholesale. 

Mr. Brownson has the effrontery to ask of the author of the sermon 
reviewed, " Will he tell us on what authority he denies the canonicity 



84 

of these books? " The fathers of Trent admitted, that, in the time of 
Ezra, these books formed no part of the Rule of Faith. It is Mr. B.'s 
business to show how, after that time, they came to be a part of that Rule. 
The burden of proof lies with him. Yet there is no attempt at proof ad- 
duced, unless it be found in the following: "Is not, even humanly speak- 
ing, the authority of the Council of Trent equal to any authority he can 
bring against it? We do not recollect any Protestant synod, that has 
ever assembled, more respectable for their numbers, their learning, 
their ability, or their piety, than were the fathers of the Council of 
Trent. These decided, as the church had previously decided and 
held, that the books in question were canonical.' 1 — p. 33. We deny 
that the church or any council, however numerous or respectable, has 
the power to make any book it pleases the Word of God. The very 
enunciation of the proposition shows its absurdity. In order to any 
book or writing being admitted as inspired, it must first be proved 
that the author worked miracles, or in some other equally conclusive 
manner showed that his mission was divine ; and, secondly, that the 
writing is authentic; that is, was really written by the person whose 
name it bears. This proof failing, all the human councils that ever 
assembled avail nothing. God must attest his uwii work, before any 
man is at liberty to receive it as his. 

But if we were disposed to concede any such right to a council, 
Trent's claim is a very feeble one. We would be very sorry to think 
that there had ever assembled a General Assembly of the Presbyte- 
rian Church, on this side of the water, to say nothing of other Pro- 
testant synods, that was not greatly more respectable in numbers, 
learning, ability and piety. The Council of Trent opened with 
twenty-eight prelates and five generals of Orders. There were 
present at the fourth session, when the Rule of Faith was adopted, 
forty-nine prelates, three abbots, and six generals of orders. These 
fifty-eight voting members, principally from Ilaly and Spain, many of 
them in the pav, and the mere creatures of, the Pope, professed to be 
the representatives of the Universal Church ! Robertson, the histo- 
rian, referring to the histories of the council, by Father Paul, Palla- 
vicino and Vargas, says: "Whichever of these authors an intelligent 
person takes for his guide, in forming a judgment concerning the 
spirit of the council, he must discover so much ambition, as well as 
artifice, among some of the members; so much ignorance and corrup- 
tion among others; he must observe such a large infusion of human 
policy and passions, mingled with such a scanty portion of that sim- 
plicity in heart, sanctity of manners, and love of truth, which alone 
qualify men to determine what doctrines are worthy of God, and what 



85 

worship is acceptable to him, that he will find it no easy matter to 
believe that an extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost hovered 
over this assembly and dictated its decrees." So much for their 
piety. Father Paul, himself a Roman Catholic, tells us, in his His- 
tory of the Council: "Neither was there, amongst these prelates, any 
one remarkable for learning : some of them were lawyers, perhaps 
learned in that profession, but of little understanding in religion; few 
divines but of less than ordinary sufficiency; the greater number gentle- 
men or courtiers; and for their dignities, some were only titular, and 
the major part bishops of small cities; thai, supposing every one to 
represent his people, it could not be said that one of a thousand in 
Christendom was represented. But particularly of Germany, there 
was not so much as one bishop or divine." Cajetan was reputed to 
be the most eminent man among them, "unto whom," says Father 
Paul, "there was no prelate or person in the council who would not 
yield in learning, or thought himself too good to learn of him;" yet 
this learned divine knew not a word of Hebrew. What minister, in 
this day, would be deemed a scholar, who could not read the Scrip- 
tures in the original? Thus, we have evidence that the Council of 
Trent was a body insignificant in numbers, and composed, for the 
most part, of ignorant, corrupt, and ambitious men, met to do the 
Pope's bidding. How much is the naked opinion of such men worthy 
in deciding upon the question whether a book is inspired or not? 

Farther, Mr. B. tells us: "These decided, as the church had pre- 
viously decided and held, that the books in question were canonical." ' 
If he means that Trent decided as all the previous general councils 
of the church had decided, it is untrue. There is evidence that the 
Council of Nice, held 325, did not receive the Apocrypha; the Coun- 
cil of Laodicea, held 80 years after, published a list of canonical 
books, from which the Apocryphal books are excluded; and the sixth 
general council at Constantinople, held in 681, approved the canon of 
Laodicea on this subject. This is some of the unanimous consent of 
Romanism. These councils were all, in the opinion of Mr. Brown- 
son, infallible, and under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit. 
Then Trent, in deciding against these ancient councils, either was 
without the Spirit's guidance, or the Holy Spirit has contradicted 
himself. Let Roman Catholics decide which horn of the dilemma 
they will take. 

But, although the Reviewer has failed to produce one plausible 
reason for admitting the Apocryphal books as pait of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, we will tell him on what very sufficient authority Protestants 
deny the canonicity of these books. 
8 



1. Because these books formed no part of the canon of the Jews, in 
the time of our Saviour. The Jews, ancient and modern, have always 
regarded them as uninspired books. Josephus does not embrace them 
in the list he has given of the inspired writings of his people, but, on 
the contrary, says, the books composed since the time of Artaxerxes 
"were not so worthy of credit, because, after that time, there was no 
regular succession of prophets." 

2. The writers of the Apocryphal books laid no claim, themselves, 
to inspiration, but speak of their own work as a matter of painful labor, 
and of the imperfection of their performances. The author of Macca- 
bees speaks of his work as the "painful labor of abridging ;" and in the 
conclusion says, "If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is 
that which I desired ; but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I 
Cpuld attain unto." They contain, also, internal evidence of their lack 
of inspiration ; "to say nothing of their silly and ridiculous stories, 
these i.'ooks notoriously contain palpable lies, gross anachronisms, flat 
Contradictions, and doctrinal statements wholly irreconcilable with 
what we are taught in the oracles of God." 

3. Christ and his apostles appea'ed to the Jewish Scriptures, as 
Containing the Word of God. They nowhere charge them with un- 
-faithfu ness in the preservation of the Divine Oracles, much less with 
having excluded one-third of the sacred writings from their canon. 
Yet this Divine Teacher was sent expressly into the world to reveal 
fully the Divine will. Could he have been faithful to his duty, and 
omitted the correction of so important an abuse ? 

4. Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished little more than half a 
century after the death of the last of the apostles, gives a catalogue of 
the canonical books of the Old Testament, from which the Apocryphal 
books tire excluded. Origen also gives a catalogue, in the third cen- 
tury, from which the Apocrypha is excluded. Athanasius. in the 
fourth century, has left a similar catalogue, and adds: "There are also 
Other books besides these, not in ieed admitted into the canon, but 
Ordained by the Fathers to be read by such as have recently come 
(Jver to us, an who wish to receive instruction in the doctrine of 
piety." The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, and I'sther, 
and Judith, and Tobit, are amongst those enumerated. We have also, 
in this century, the catalogues of Hilary , bishop of Poitiers, in France; 
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, a prominent member of the second general 
cpuncil of Constantinople; Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis; Gregory, 
bishop of Nazianzen; Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium; and of Jerome 
and Ruffinus, all concurring in the exclusion of these books from the 
number of inspired writings; and, lastly, we have, in the canon of tha 



87 

Council of Laodicea, to which reference has been previously made, 
the very same iist of books, excluding the Apocrypha; this canon was 
afterwards confirmed at Constantinople, in the close of the seventh 
century. 

The testimony here is perfectly conclusive. These books were re- 
jected by the Jews, rejected by Christ and his apostles, and rejected by 
the Christian Church for at least four hundred years after the advent. 
What higher authority can any one ask for rejecting them as consti- 
tuting any part of the Rule of Faith ? The writers of the books them- 
selves, far from claiming any inspiration, declare their work imperfect, 
and only claim the credit of having done the best they could. But^ 
notwithstanding the implied protest of the writers, and the concurrent 
testimony of antiquity, it suited the purposes of the Fathers of Trent 
to make them Holy Scripture, and, accordingly, Scripture they 
become. If Holy Scripture can thus easily be made, we see nothing 
to prevent any fifty prelates of Rome, at any future time, incorpora- 
ting Robinson Crusoe, or the Arabian Nights, into the Word of God. 



Doctrine of Justification by Faith, 
There is no part of this remarkable Review in which the disingen- 
uousness of the writer is more apparent than in his labored defence of 
the Romish doctrine of Justification. He seems to have felt that the 
Roman ground was difficult of defence ; for, after occupying a page 
with silly twattle, and then most grossly slandering the Protestant 
doctrine upon this subject, he resorts to Bishop Hughes to help him 
out of his trouble, by giving a long quotation from this famous sophis- 
ter. This is the prelate who obtained, in New York, so great 
celebrity for dabbling in politics, and trying to banish the Bible from 
the Common Schools of that State. He has much experience in the 
work of glossing over the errors of Rome, as well as in covering up 
her designs. There is a wide difference, however, between the two 
men: Mr. Brownson is as reckless as Bishop Hughes is cautious. 
The one attempts to gain his point by effrontery, the other by a 
smooth-faced deceit. It is not a little amusing to find Mr. B., in the 
tangled state of his ideas on this subject, asserting one thing concern- 
ing the Protestants, and then quoting the Bishop, asserting the opposite. 
Mr. B. says : " Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone is re- 
jected by many Protestants themselves. Swedenborg sends Luther to 
hell for teaching it ; the Unitarians, Universal s, Quakers, some An- 
glicang, the Genevans, the majority of the French Protestants, and a 



88 

great part of the German Protestants, virtually, if not avowedly, reject 
it. It is hardly true of any Protestant sect, at the present day, that it 
really holds it tfs it was taught by Luther and his brother innovators." 

p. 34. Then he quotes Bishop Hughes as saying: "The error of 

Luther has been incorporated, with but slight modifications, into ihe 
theology o* all the other Protestant denominations. Hence the doctrine 
of salvation by ' faith alone.' " — p. 36. A marvellous man is this Mr. 
Brownson ; he utters a falsehood, and brings in his bishop to convict him 
of it ! The bishop here is right ; the doctrine of justification, as taught 
by Luther, is the doctrine of all Evangelical Protestants, and it is of 
them the bishop is speaking. 

Here follows the Reviewer's account of the Protestant doctrine of 
justification. " Moreover, the doctrine in question is a very bad doc- 
trine. As originally set forth, by the Reformers, it is, Believe firmly 
that God remits your sins for Christ's sake, and you are justified, with- 
out any respect to a moral change which may be effected in you. The 
justified man, morally considered, or considered in relation to his actual 
intrinsic character, is just as much of a sinner as he was before justifica- 
tion The only difference between the justified and the unjustified is, 
that the sins of the former are not imputed, while the sins of the latter 
are. Thus you may sin as much as you please, but so long as you 
believe firmly that God remits your sins for Christ's sake, not one of 
the sins vou commit will be imputed to you. or reckoned as sin." — 
p 34. This, he says, was Luther's doctrine. In order to show to our 
readers how much dependance can be placed upon Mr. Brownson's 
statements, we will place Luther's own words beside this account of his 
doctrine. Luther, in his C -mmentary on Galatians, on chapter iii., 
verse 10. says: "Wherefore, to do, is, first of all. to believe, and so 
through faith to perform the law. We must first receive the Holy 
Ghost, wherewith we being lightened and made new creatures, begin 
to do the law, that is to say, to love God and our neighbor. But the 
Holy Ghost is not received through the law, (for they which are under 
the law, as Paul saith, are under the curse,) hut by the hearing of faith, 
that is to say, through the promise." "Therefore, before all things, 
we must hear and receive the promise, which setteth out Christ, and 
offereth him to all believers: and when they have taken hold upon him 
by faith, the Holy Ghost is given unto him for his sake. Then do they 
love God and their neighbor, then do they good works, then do they 
carry the cross patiently. This is to obey the law indeed; otherwise 
the law remaineth always undone." Here the doctrine is, that no man, 
unless renewed — his moral nature changed — can do anything that will 
be in conformity to the law of God ; but that in every man that believes 



89 

on Christ, the Holy Ghost is given, the heart is renewed, and he offers 
daily to God the homage of his heart and the obedience of his life. Mr. 
Brownson says, it was Luther's doctrine, that men are justified without 
any respect to a moral change being effected in them ; they may sin as 
much as they please, if they only believe that God remits their sins for 
Christ's sake, not, one of their sins will be imputed to them. While 
Luther says his doctrine is. that a man must first be enlightened and 
made a new creature, that is, his moral nature changed; that this is 
done in believing, then he is justified, and his new moral nature pro- 
duces a real obedience to the law. Was Mr. B. ignorant of what 
Luther taught, or is this false statement willful? Neither alternative is 
creditable to Mr. B. 

Nay, Luther expressly condemns, as counterfeit and worthless, that 
which Mr. B. charges him with holding as justifying faith. "The 
counterfeit faith is that which heareth of God, of Christ, and of all the 
mysteries of his incarnation and our redemption; which also apprehen- 
deth and beareth away those things which it heareth, yea, and can talk 
goodly thereof: and yet there remaineth nothing else in the heart but a 
naked opinion and sound of the gospel. For it neither reneweth nor 
changeth the heart ; it maketh not a new man, but leaveth him in the 
vanity of his former opinion and conversation ; and this is a very per : 
nicious faith. The moral philosopher is much better than the hypocrite 
having such a faith." — Com. on Gal., p. 264. 

But it is not merely Luther whose doctrine is maligned by this vera- 
cious Reviewer. The travesty which he has given of the doctrine of 
justification, he says, is that "originally set forth by the Reformers." 
Calvin was one of these, holding no inconsiderable place. And, as 
early as his day, this stale calumny, of which Mr. B. is now the trum- 
peter, was put forth by Rome. Calvin says: "They allege that justi- 
fication by faith destroys good works. I forbear any remarks on the 
characters of these zealots for good works, who thus calumniate us. 
Let them rail with impunity, as licentiously as they infest the whole 
world with the impurity of their lives. They affect to lament that 
while faith is so magnificently extolled, works are degraded from their 
proper rank. What if they be more encouraged and established? For 
we never dream either of a faith destitute of good works, or of a justifi- 
cation unattended by them : this is the sole difference, that, while we 
acknowledge a necessary connexion between faith and good works, we 
attribute justification, not to works, but to faith." "Christ, therefore, 
justifies no one whom he does not also sanctify. For these benefits are 
perpetually and indissolubly connected, so that whom he illuminates 
with his wisdom, them he redeems; whom he redeems, he justifies; 
8* 



90 

whom he justifies, he sanctifies" — Institutes, bk. iii , ch. 16. Let Mr* 
Brownson show, if he can, fr>m the writings of any of the great mert 
who constitute the original reformers, a single one that advocated the 
doctrine h< j places to their account 

When the Reviewer says, "the doctrine in question is a very bad 
doctrine," he makes that assertion of the doctrine concerning justifi- 
cation as now held by Protestants ; it is their present views on justi- 
fication that is the doctrine in question. He then leaves the inference 
to be drawn that Protestants now hold that men are justified without 
any moral change, and that " you may sin as much as you please, but 
so long as you believe firmly that God remits your sins for Christ's 
sake, not one of the sins you commit will be imputed to you, or reck- 
oned as sin." Mr. B. seems to use Protestant in a very wide sense, 
as including all who differ from the Church of Rome, for he enume- 
rates S vedenborgians, Unitarians, Universalists, Quakers, &c. ; he 
should have added, Jews, Mohammedans, Mormons, Infidels, and 
divers others. Now, as Mr. B. has himself belonged to some half 
dozen of these denominations, he would seem to be well qualified to 
tell what their views are. But as those named, together with, as we 
presume, the Rationalists of England, Geneva, France and Germany, 
are said by him to reject the above view of the doctrine, we must 
suppose that he levels his accusation against the evangelical Proies- 
tant denominations. Now, Mr. B. is either grossly ignorant of the 
doctrine of the Christian people around him, and he says he lias been 
a Presbyterian, or he has been guilty of willfully misrepresenting 
them. For we challenge him to produce, from the Articles or Con* 
fession of Faith of any one of these denominations, anything to coun- 
tenance his assertion. 

Evangelical Protestants hold, that being depraved by nature, it is 
impossible that man should ever mzrit the forgiveness of his .Mns. 
But Christ having suffered and died in the sinner's stead, by believing 
in him he is united to Cnrist, and made a partaker of the benefits of 
his righteousness. Thus he is acquilted by God, not on account oi' any 
merit of his own, nor of an infused righteousness, but on account of 
the merit of Christ's obedience and death. This is the doctrine of 
justification, as taught in the Augsburg Confession, drawn up by Me- 
lancihon, under the Direction of Luther, and presented to the Em- 
peror ! harles V., by the Protestant princes of the empire, at the 
Diet of Augsburg, in the year 1530. In this Confession, they farther 
say: "That our adversaries do accuse us to neglect the doctrine of 
good works, it is a manifest slander ; for the books of our divines are 
extant, wherein they do godly and profitably teach, touching good 



91 

Works, what works in every calling do please God." Again, under 
the head " Of Good Works," the Confession says : u When as we 
do teach in our Churches the most necessary doctrine, and comfort of 
faith, we join therewith the doctrine of good works, to wit, that 
obedience unto the law of God- is requisite in them that be reconciled. 
For the gospel preacheth newness of life, according to that saying, 
* I will put my laws in their hearts :' this new life, therefore, must be 
an obedience towards God.. The gospel also preacheth repentance, 
and faith cannot be, but only in them that do repent, because that faith 
doth comfort the hearts in contrition and in the fears of sin, as Paul 
saith, ' Being justified by faith, we have peace ;? and of repentance 
he saith, Rom. vi. : 'Our old man is crucified,, that the body of sin 
might be abolished, that we might no more serve sin.'" Again: 
M When as once we do- acknowledge his mercy through faith, then we 
fly unto God, we love him, we call upon him, hope in him, look for 
his help, obey him in afflictions, because we do now know ourselves 
to be the sons of God, and that this our sacrifice, that is, our afflic- 
tions, doth please God. These services doth faith bring forth. Very- 
well, therefore, said Ambrose, 'Faith is the mother of a good will, 
and of just dealing.' " 

These same views will be found in every Confession of evangelical 
Protestants, from the Diet of Augsburg to the present day. They 
are those of the first and second Helvetic Confessions of the years 
1536 and 1566; of the French Confession in 1559; of the Thirty- 
nine Articles of the Church of England in 1562; of the Belgian 
Confession in 1563; of the Bohemian in 1573; and of the West- 
minster Assembly in 1643. Thus the slander of Mr. Brovvnson, 
that Luther and the original Reformers held, and that Protestants now 
hold, that men are justified without a moral change, and that they may 
6in as much as they please afterwarJs, is fully refuted. 



Romish Doctrine of Justification. 
Mr. Brownson tells us, that " to justify signifies to make just, and 
no man destitute of justice is justified. The error of Protestants is 
in placing justification in the simple remission of sin. Sin may be 
remitted, and yet the man want justice. Consequently, the remission 
is not alone justification. God is a God of truth, and can call no 
man just who is not just." — p 34. Mr. B.'s error here arises from 
his taking a Latin translation of the word of God instead of going to 



the Hebrew and Greek originals. Justification is a Latin word, not 
of classical authority, but manufactured by ecclesiastical writers, so 
that its etymological meaning, on which the Reviewer relies, proves 
nothing as to the real nature of the doctrine. The Greek word 
dikaiou, as used in the New Testament, rarely, if ever, has the 
meaning to make just For example, Rom. iv. 5, 6, " To him that 
worketh not, but belie veth on him that j ustifieth the ungodly, his faith 
is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the 
blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness 
Without works.'''' Here Paul directly contradicts the Reviewer's as- 
sertion, and tells us that to justify is not to make righteous by an in- 
fusion of holy habits, but to pronounce just, or righteous on valid 
grounds, namely, because of a righteousness that is imputed or reck- 
oned to the sinner's account, without any works of his own. The 
Scriptures use the word justification in & forensic sense, as denoting 
not a change of a person's dispositions, but a change of his state in 
relation to law. This may be readily seen by any one who will take 
the trouble to examine the places in the Bible in which the word 
occurs ; our limits forbid the multiplication of examples. Then all 
the argument Mr. B. has advanced, of his own, grows out of his 
ignorance of the Scriptures, and falls to the ground. 

Another mistake, willfully, or ignorantly, made by the Reviewer, in 
the few lines we have quoted, is, that Protestants are said to place 
"justification in the simple remission of sins." Protestants hold, 
that in pronouncing a sinner just, two things are necessarily involved : 
first, that he is acquitted from every charge of transgression brought 
against him by the law ; and, secondly, that he is accounted to have 
fulfilled, or on some ground is treated as if he had fulfilled, its de- 
mands. This Bishop Hughes acknowledges in the quotation made 
from him by the Reviewer, when he asserts, " It is only by a certain 
fiction of thought and language that such a person can be considered 
innocent ; or that his intrinsic guilt can be conceived of as still exist- 
ing, but as imputed to the one who interceded for him, and the justice 
[righteousness] of that intercessor imputed to him. Such is the ex- 
act likeness of justification, as taught in the theology of Protestant- 
ism." — p. 35. We turn the bishop over to Paul, as seen in our quo- 
tation from the Epistle to (he Romans, seeing that the very doctrine 
here sneered at by this Romish prelate is that which Paul, by an ex- 
tended argument, proves in the fourth chapter of that epistle. But 
we would admonish Mr. Brownson to be careful how he contradicts 
so flatly, his ghostly superiors, even in slandering Protestants. 

We turn now to Bishop Hughes' account of Justification as held by 



93 

Rome, which is as follows : " Justification is that action or operation 
of Divine Grace on the soul by winch a man passes from the state of 
sin; from an enemy, becomes a friend of God, agreeable in the Di- 
vine sight, and an heir to eternal life. This act of transition from 
the one state to the other, with its operating causes, is called 'justi- 
fication,' " — p. 34. Thus far, it will be perceived, that what the 
bishop calls " justification" is identical with what Protestants denomi- 
nate " conversion," or what in the Westminster Confession is termed 
" effectual calling." But the Bishop proceeds : " In the Catholic sys- 
tem, this justification, occurring in the modes of the Saviour's ap- 
pointment, is not only the imputation, but also the interior application, 
of the justice of Christ, by which guilt is destroyed, pardon bestowed, 
and the soul replenished by the inherent grace and charity of the Holy 
Spirit." — p. 35. This is rather misty, but seems to be what Pro- 
testants mean by " sanetification," which is thus described in the 
Westminster Confession : " They who are effectually called and re- 
generated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are 
sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death 
and resurrection, by his word and Spirit dwelling in them ; the do- 
minion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts 
thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more 
and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the 
practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." 
But then, if the first part of the bishop's definition applies to conver- 
sion and the second to sanctification, where is justification, or that 
act by which God accepts the sinner as just on account of the obedi- 
ence and death of Christ ? We answer, the doctrine of justification 
as taught in the word of God, and held by Protestants, forms no part 
of the Romish system. The Scriptures teach, that through the opera- 
tion of the Holy Spirit men repent of their sins, and believe in Jesus 
Christ, this is being born again; that by this faith they are united to 
Christ and become partakers of the merits of his death and obedience, 
on account of which God is reconciled : this is jusiifi cation ; that hence- 
forth the word and spirit dwelling in them, they are enabled to mortify 
sin and grow in grace : this is sanctification. Now, make the new 
birth baptism, and omit justification, and you have a system by which 
man is saved through "the interior application of the justice of 
Christ, by which guilt is destroyed, pardon bestowed, and the soul 
replenished by the inherent grace and charity of the Holy Ghost" — 
in other words, by an infused righteousness which enables him by 
works to merit heaven. Thus, to get clear of the doctrine that men 
are justified through the merits of Christ alone, Rome has taken the 



94 

doctrines of regeneration and sanctification, omitting entirely the 
middle link of justification, and, after pow-wowing over them in the 
jargon of the schools, exhibited them to the world as the true doctrine 
of justification. Then, because Protestants have kept these doctrines 
separate and made Christ's merits one thing, and the " interior opera- 
tion" of the word and spirit another thing, she has been loud in her 
accusation that Protestants denied the necessity of good works, never 
breathing a syllable of her own sleight of hand manoeuvres, or that 
she had ever heard of such a doctrine as sanctification belonging to 
the Protestant creed. 

But lest it should be supposed that Bishop Hughes has not fairly 
represented the Romish doctrine upon this subject, we turn to the 
highest authority in that Church. We quote from chapters vii. and 
xvi. of the Decree of Trent on Justification. " Justification is not 
remission of sin merely, but also sanctification, and the renewal of the 
inner man by the voluntary reception of grace and divine gifts, so 
that he who was unrighteous is made righteous, and the enemy be- 
comes a friend, and an heir according to the hope of eternal life." 
In enumerating the causes of justification they say, " The sole formal 
cause is the righteousness of God; not that by which he himself is 
righteous, but that by which he makes us right< ous ; with which, 
being endued by him, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and 
are not only accounted righteous but are properly called righteous, and 
are so, receiving righteousness in ourselves, each according to his 
measure, which the Holy Spirit bestows on each as he wills, and ac- 
cording to our respective dispositions and co-operation." In chapter 
xvi., these fathers say, " It must be believed that the justified are in 
no respect deficient, but that they may be considered as fully satisfy- 
ing the divine law, (so far as is compatible with our present condi- 
tion,) by their works, which are wrought in God, and as really de- 
serving eternal lite, to be bestowed in due time, if they die in a state 
of grace.'' This is a system of salvation by works. Christ by hit 
death merited, that we might merit by our works eternal life. He 
alone is formally just who has that form inherent in himself. And 
all the parade, consequently, of Christ as being the cause of our sal- 
vation, and of his death as being the meritorious cause of our justi- 
fication, amounts to nothing, for the system explains it all away. The 
two systems then are directly opposed. In the one, the sinner, emptied 
of all self-righteousness, relies solely on the obedience and death of 
Christ ; in the other, he rests upon an inherent righteousness, prop- 
erly his own, which Christ's death enables him to work out. 

It may be of service to show the opinions of some eminent Pro- 



95 

testants concerning the difference between Rome and us upon this 
subject. Bishop Hall says, " What can be more contrary than these 
opinions to each other. The Papists make this inherent righteous- 
ness the cause of our justification ; the Protestants the effect thereof. 
The Protestants require it as the companion or page ; the Papists, as 
the usher, yea, rather as the parent of Justification." — Hull's Works, 
vol. IX. p. 4 i. Archbishop Usher says, "The question between us 
and them is, whether there be any justification besides sanctification ; 
that is, whether there be any justification at all? We say sanctifica- 
tion is wrought by the kingly office of Christ. He is a king who 
rules in our hearts, subdues our corruptions, by the sceptre of his 
word and spirit ; but it is the point of his priestly office which the 
Church of Rome strikes at; that is, whether Christ has reserved 
another righteousness for us, besides that which as a king he works 
in our hearts ; whether he hath wrought forgiveness for us? we say 
he hath, and so said all the Church till the spawn of the Jesuits 
arose." — Usher's Sermons, jYg.xvi. 

Now, let it be remembered that this is no contest about words or 
non-essentials. Rome strikes at the very core of the whole plan of 
salvation, and sweeps away God's meihod of Justification. Her ad- 
herents refuse to submit themselves to the righteousness of Christ, 
and go about to establish their own righteousness ; thev are thus con- 
fiding in a refuge of lies, and must expect to lie down in sorrow. 
"Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ." 



Romish Sa <ramtrds . 
The Decree of Trent on the Sacraments is an important addenda to 
that on Justification. In the one, the Council swept away the right- 
eousness of faith, or God's method of Justification ; in the other, the 
fathers manufactured a right eou>ness of works, vet so artfully that no 
one could work out that righteousness without the help of the priest 
at every step. The decree commences thus: '**In order to complete 
the wholesome doctrine of unification, published in the last session 
by the unanimous consent of the fathers, it hath been deemed proper 
to treat of the holy Sacraments of the Church, by which nil true 
ri^hieousnees is at first imparted, then increased, and afterwards restored, 
if lost:'' 

Vo all this Mr. Brownson simply says, " Well, what then ?" — 
p. 37. Why, just this : if by the Sacraments " all tiue righteousness 



96 

is at first imparted, then increased, and afterwards restored, if lost," 
the administrator of the Sacraments, that is, the priest, holds in his 
hands the power to regenerate and sanctify the soul — the power to 
give heaven and to consign to hell. And it does not matter, accord- 
ing to Rome, what may be the character of the priest himself, though 
he be the vilest wretch that ever breathed, if he has regularly re- 
ceived orders, he possesses this power over the souls of men. '' The 
Council further teaches, that even those priests who are living in mor- 
tal sin exercise the function of orgiving sins, as the ministers of 
Christ, b . the power of the Holy Spirit conferred upon them in or- 
dination ;" and further, to put the capstone to this enormity, we are 
informed that tiie act of such a priest is not "to be considered as 
merely a ministry, 1 ' "but as of the nature of a judicial act, in which 
se.tence is pronounced by him as a judge." — Decree on Penance, 
chap, vi. To all this we presume our imperturbable Reviewer will 
still say, " Well, what then?" To him the opposition of Scripture, 
of common sense and common decency, to a dogma of Rome constitutes 
no perceptible obstacle. 

It is singular enough that the Fathers of Trent gave no definition 
of a Sacrament in their decree upon the subject. The Cytechism, 
however, supplies the deficiency. It teaches that "the Sacraments 
of the New Law are signs instituted by God, not invented by man, 
which we believe, with an unhesitating faith, to carry with them that 
sacre I efficacy of which they are the signs.'' 1 That is, they are not sLns 
at all, but the very thing itself; — we would hardly say that food was 
the sign of something to satisfy hunger. Again, the Catechism says : 
" In order, therefore, to explain more fully the nature of a Sacra- 
ment, the pastor will teach that it is a thing subject to the senses : 
and possessing, by divine institution, at once the power of signi ying 
sanctity and justice, [righteousness] and of imparting both to the re- 
ceiver. 1 '' — p. 102. 

Concerning the author of the Sacraments we have the following : 
" Justification comes from God; the Sacraments are the wonderful 
instruments of justification ; one and the same God in Christ must, 
therefore, be the author of justification and of the Sacraments. The 
Sacraments, moreover, conttin a power and efficacy which re.>ch the 
inmost recesses of the soul ; and as God alone has power to enter 
into the sanctuary of the heart, he alone, through Christ, is manifest- 
ly the author of ti;e Sacraments." — p. 108. The argument to prove 
God the author of the Sacraments seem strange to Protestants, who, 
in their simplicity, would merely have quoted the warrant from 
Scripture. Besides, we can see no propriety in their mode of proof; 



97 

the Council might just as well say God is the author of the Sacra- 
ments, as say justification comes from God, and the Sacraments being 
the instruments of justification must come from the same God. The 
regard they exercised towards God's institution we have already 
shown, in that they cast out of their system the thing justification, 
whilst they retained the name ; and we may reasonably expect that 
they have dealt with an equal freedom with the Sacraments as God 
gave them. The second argument is sound, if the premises be true. 
If an external sign can " reach the inmost recesses of the soul" by 
any other means than the medium of the understanding, it must be 
by a miracle, of which, truly, God alone can be the author. 

But to proceed, the Catechism tells us that the number of Sacra- 
ments is seven, and in proof presents the analogy that exists between 
natural life and spiritual life. "In order to exist, to preserve ex- 
istence, and to contribute to his own and to the public good, seven 
things seem necessary to man — to be born ; to grow ; to be nurtured ; 
to be cured when sick ; when weak to be strengthened ; as far as 
regards the public weal, to have magistrates invested with authority 
to govern ; and, finally, to perpetuate himself and his species by legiti- 
mate offspring. Analogous, then, as all these things obviously are, 
to that life by which the soul lives to God, we discern in them a 
reason to account for the number of the Sacraments." — p. 107. It 
proceeds then to trace that analogy, showing that in the spiritual life 
we are born again in baptism ; grow up and are strengthened in con- 
firmation ; nourished in the eucharistj when we have caught the 
contagion of sin are cured by penance ; the traces of sin are oblite- 
rated by extreme unction ; the sacred magistry is perpetuated by or- 
ders ; and the conservation of the spiritual race is secured by matri- 
mony. Here is a beautiful system of physical salvation. The spirit- 
ual life is begun, carried on, restored if lost, perfected, by what ? 
Faith ? No. The obedience and death of Christ ? No. The in- 
fluences of God's Spirit ? No. But by the Sacraments — certain ex- 
ternal ceremonies — at the option of the priest to be performed or not 
in each individual case. Let it be remembered, Rome makes justifi- 
cation the making of men inherently righteous, and declares that the 
Sacraments are "the wonderful instruments of justification ;" that is, 
of that inherent righteousness. Mr. Brownson, it is true, attempts to 
deny that this effect is produced by the power of the Sacraments 
themselves. But that denial is the mere Jesuitical trick which 
abounds throughout the whole of the acts of the Council of Trent. 
He says : M ' The Sacraments confer grace by their own power ;' but 
what is its own power ? Simply the power of God who instituted 
9 



98 

theni. He is himself the causa efficiens operating in the Sacrament." 
-—p. 37. Well, food nourishes our bodies by its own power, but 
what is its own power? Simply the power of God, who appointed 
it for that end, and endowed it with the necessary properties. God 
is the causa efficiens operating in all nature. Hence, this is a mere 
subterfuge ; Mr. Brownson has used language designing that it should 
be misunderstood by Protestants, and the same charge lies against the 
Fathers of Trent. 

But there is further evidence that this is the sense of Rome. The 
Eighth canon of the Council on the Sacraments is, " Whoever shall 
affirm that grace is not conferred by these Sacraments of the new 
law, by their own power, [ex opere operato ;] but that faith in the 
divine promise is all that is necessary to obtain grace : let him be ac- 
cursed." Now, what is meant by the words, "by their own pow- 
er," or, " ex opere operato ?" " In the scholastic language of Roman- 
ism," says Bishop M'llvaine, "there are two technical expressions 
with regard to the efficacy of the Sacraments, viz : opus operans, and 
opus operatum. The expression that the Sacraments confer grace ex 
epere operante, means, that their efficacy requires in the recipient a 
preparatory state of inward piety ; that is precisely what we are ac- 
customed to understand by the repentance and faith required for the 
baptism of adults. Such was the efficacy of the Sacraments in the 
Jewish Church, according to the Church of Rome ; Abraham having 
been justified by faith, while in uncircumcision. But the efficacy of 
the Sacraments of the Christian Church is exalted above that of 
those which went before, in this, viz : that they confer grace ex opere 
operato; by which is meant that no previous preparation of internal 
piety, such as that of a living faith, is required in the recipient ; so 
that, says Chemnitz, (a Lutheran divine of the time of the Council 
of Trent,) the schoolmen made a general rule, that, in order to receive 
the grace of the Sacraments, unto salvation, it is not necessary that 
you have faith, that is to say, a good internal affection of heart, (a 
living faith,) but it is sufficient that you place no obstacle in the way # 
The opus operatum, then, is simply the efficacy of the Sacraments, 
without respect to the state of the recipient, except, that he do not 
shut up his soul against them." — Oxford Divinity, p. 215. 

Aquinus, the Angelic Doctor of Rome, defining the faith required 
for baptism, says, that " though a person should not have a right 
faifn as to other articles, he may have it as to baptism ; and thus he 
may have the intention to receive baptism. But even though he 
should not think correctly concerning this Sacrament, a general inten- 
tion is sufficient for its reception; because, though he knows nothing 



90 

correctly about it, he intends to receive it as Christ appointed, and 
the Church has handed it down."— P. 1, 2, a. 67, Q. 8. This is the 
faith necessary to baptism in an adult, and baptism is that which 
translates the soul from that state in which man is born a child of the 
first Adam, into a state of grace and adoption of the children of God. 
Thus a mere profession of faith in whatever may be asserted by the 
Church, without knowing anything about it, is all that is required of 
the recipient in order to his regeneration. 

We have then regeneration effected in an adult without any interna 
change of heart, simply by means of the external ceremony perform- 
ed by the priest. This is in the language of Rome the first justifica- 
tion, and the subject is completely righteous, and dying the moment 
after the administration would go safe to heaven. But suppose he 
lives and eommits sin, then what is to be done? Baptise him again? 
That would be the shortest method, but Rome says no ; she has pro- 
vided a way far more profitable to the priesthood. Penance is a 
" second plank after shipwreck." The second canon on penance is, 
" Whoever, confounding the Sacraments, shall affirm that baptism 
itself is penance, as if these two Sacraments were not distinct, and 
penance were not rightly called \ a second plank after shipwreck :' 
let him be accursed." In this Sacrament, so called, there are three 
parts: contrition, confession and satisfaction. The first is narrowed 
down to a simple fear of eternal death in consequence of his sin ; the 
second is a mere external act of telling the priest at the confessional 
what may be remembered of sinful acts ; and the third is performing 
the penance laid upon the devotee by the priest. So that having 
made shipwreck of righteousness once, when fear comes upon the 
Romish devotee, he goes to the confession, and then performs the 
enjoined penance, and is duly absolved by the priest acting" as Jesus 
Christ, not merely as a minister or agent, but "as a judge." Now 
he is upon the second plank after shipwreck, this is the second justifi- 
cation of Rome, and, to make assurance doubly sure, the Sacrament 
of the Eucharist comes in, and he, by partaking of the real body and 
blood of the Lord, becomes one of the number who, according to the 
Catechism of Trent, " receive, no doubt, the Son of God into their 
souls, and are united, as living members, to his body." — " The eternal 
Word, uniting himself to his own flesh, imparted to it a vivifying 
power; it became him, therefore, to unite himself to us after a won- 
derful manner, through his sacred flesh and precious blood, which we 
receive in the bread and wine consecrated by his vivifying benedic- 
tion."— Cat. p. 165. Thus being one, and part and parcel of the 
same flesh and blood of Christ, his salvation is si$re, Was there 



100 

ever a system contrived with equal Satanic wisdom to divert the 
minds of men from the only method God has given for the salvation 
of the soul ? 

We deny that Rome has any Sacraments in the Scriptural sense of 
the word. It is essential to a Sacrament that it be a sign of an in- 
visible grace. — Rom. iv. 11. Rome, by declaring that her Sacraments 
contain the " efficacy" of the thing signified, and have the power of 
" imparting both sanctity and righteousness to the receiver," denies 
that they are signs, but the grace itself. Hence, while five of her 
Sacraments are perfectly worthless as such, because without the 
shadow of any Scriptural warrant ; by making baptism regeneration, 
or rather justification itself, and the Lord's supper a real sacrifice, 
and the actual eating of the body and blood of the Saviour, she de- 
stroys the essential feature of a Sacrament in both these ceremonies. 



The Jesuits. 

There is a short and happy way, in a controversy, of getting over 
an array of troublesome facts, which is to deny them in bulk, and 
plead want of room to reply to them in detail. In a sermon upon the 
" Dangers of Jesuit Instruction," the History of the Jesuits must be 
a somewhat important item ; and it is very remarkable, that in a Re- 
view occupying twenty-eight octavo pages, this part happened to be 
crowded out. We quote the words of the Reviewer. " After these 
charges, the preacher proceeds to sketch the history of the Jesuits, 
and to show what an intriguing and dangerous set of mortals they 
are. We have no room to follow him through this part of his dis- 
course. He falls, of course, into almost as many errors as he makes 
assertions." — p. 38. Mr. Brownson's dependence here, is on the 
ignorance of his Romish readers. Taught, as they are, by their 
priests, that everything from a Protestant pen about their Church is 
false, and kept in profound ignorance of true history by their own 
expurgated Historical productions, which they modify from year to 
year, a good deal may be ventured upon their known incapacity to 
correct the falsehood. Mr. B. knows that the " assertions" are au- 
thentic history, and so does every reader of real history. But we 
have long since shown that our veracious Reviewer is not troubled 
about such " venial sins" as he has here committed. 

To frighten us from any resistance of these " Janisaries of the 
Pope," our Reviewer finds room to make a very important communi- 
cation. He says, " we cannot forbear expressing our full conviction 



101 

that the Society of Jesus is under the special guidance of Almighty 
God, and that he will avenge himself on its persecutors. France 
warred against the Jesuits and expelled them ; she had her reward ; 
' — Spain warred against the Jesuits and expelled them ; she is now 
reaping her reward. We want no better proof of the sanctity and 
utility of the Order than the fact, that Protestants, infidels, and ty- 
rants, are everywhere opposed to it." — p. 38. It seems after all, that 
all that part of the sermon having reference to the expulsion of the 
Jesuits from the Roman Catholic countries of Europe, is true. Mr. B. 
ought to have included amongst the opposers of the Order, as still 
further evidence of its sanctity, the Roman Catholics j seeing it has 
been the beloved sons of the Church in every instance that drove 
them from their countries, and a legitimate successor of St. Peter 
that suppressed the Order. But we have as full a conviction as Mr. 
B. can possibly have to the contrary, that the Society of Jesus is not 
" under the special guidance of Almighty God," and for that convic- 
tion we will state our reasons.. 

1. The founder of the Society, Ignatius of Loyola, was a bigoted 
fanatic, and such are not the instruments usually guided by Almighty 
God. We give, in proof of what we state, some extracts from the 
Life of Ignatius, by Father Bonhours, a Jesuit : " Rising one night 
according to custom, and prostrating himself, with sentiments of ex- 
traordinary piety, before an image of the Blessed! Virgin, he offered 
himself through her intercession to Jesus Christ, and consecrated 
himself to serve the Son and the Mother with inviolable fidelity. At 
the conclusion of his prayer, he heard a mighty noise ; the house was 
agitated j all the windows of his chamber were broken ; and a great 
rent was made in the wall, which remains to this day to be seen. 
God did, probably, thereby manifest that the sacrifice of Ignatius was 
agreeable to him." — Life of St. Ignatius, p. 60. This is the account 
of his conversion, as reported by himself,, of course. At the hospital 
of Manresa, where his saintship first took up his abode, the following 
account of his manner of Kfe is given: "He fasted the whole week,, 
except on Sunday, when he eat a few boiled herbs, over which he first 
sprinkled ashes. He girt his body with a pointed chain j under his 
coarse habit he wore a hair shirt j- and thrice a day he applied the 
discipline. He slept little and lay on the ground."— lb,, p. 69. The 
father further describes him on the succeeding page : " His ap- 
pearance was strange and almost revolting — his face was dirty, his 
hair clotted, his beard and nails gr&wn to an inordinate length — so 
that when he would appear in the town of Manresa, the children 
pointed at him,, and followed him through the streets with shouts and 
9* 



102 

outcries." These hissings, which he received for his filthiness, he 
was pleased to call " the share he had in the contumelies of the cross." 
Finally, the saint found about half a mile from the town a cave, for 
which he conceived a very strong affection, it being the abode of 
toads, and slime, and lighted only by a cleft in the rock, and hence as 
filthy as he was himself; here he fixed his abode. " He chastised 
his body, four or five times a day, with an iron chain ; and remained 
three or four days without taking any nourishment. When his 
strength began to fail, he ate some herbs which he gathered in the 
valley, and some bread he had brought from the hospital." — lb., p. 72. 
The same author tells us, that when Ignatius was about to leave Spain 
for Italy, the master of the ship gave him a free passage, dirty as he 
was, but required him to bring his provisions for the voyage. This 
he declined, for fear of violating " the spirit of evangelical poverty." 
The difficulty was gotten over in a very remarkable manner, and is 
characteristic. " To rid himself of this scruple r he had recourse to 
his confessor ; and being ordered by him to accept the condition im- 
posed on him, lie readily did, through obedience, what he would not 
do of his own free will." — lb., p. 98. The sight of the Saviour was 
a common occurrence to him : once he saw him bearing a heavy cross, 
and was presented by him to God the Father. He once saw the 
Trinity, and wrote a most wonderfully sublime treatise upon that sub- 
ject, of eighty pages, which Father Bonhours thinks was inspired, 
because the saint at that time could barely read and write — but which 
nobody seems ever to have seen. He cast out devils and healed dis- 
eases. The man thus described by his own followers is either a base 
deceiver, or one whose imagination has been cultivated beyond the 
bounds of sanity, and is a fanatic. Any man in our day who would 
make such statements before a competent jury sitting on his sanity, 
would be pronounced at least a mono-maniac. Such persons are not 
thought to be under the special guidance of Almighty God. 

2. Our second reason for believing the Order not under Divine 
guidance, grows out of the way prescribed for making Jesuits. Ig- 
natius having worked himself into and out of these raptures so many 
times, determined to lay down a set of rules, a material process, by 
which raptures could be manufactured. This is his book of " Spirit- 
ual Exercises," and is the soul of the Order — by it the first members 
were all cast in the same mould. This curious process is thus de- 
scribed by Prof. Quinet, of the College of France : " To arrive at the 
state of sanctity, we find in this book rules such as these — first, trace 
upon a paper lines of different size, which answer to the greatness of 
sins j secondly, shut yourself up in a chamber, of which the windows 



103 

are half closed, sometimes prostrate yourself with your face to the 
ground, sometimes lie upon the back, rise up, sit down, &c, &c. ; 
fifthly, break out in exclamations ; sixthly, in the contemplation of 
hell, (which comprehends two preludes, five points and a colloquy,) 
see in spirit, vast conflagrations, monsters, and souls plunged into 
gleaming prisons, imagine you hear complaints, vociferations, fancy 
also, a putrid odor of smoke, sulphur, and cadaverous cloaca, taste the 
most bitter things, such as tears, gall, and the worm of the conscience, 
&c. But it is not the visions alone which are thus prescribed ; what 
you would never suppose, the sighs even are noted; the aspiration, 
the inspiration is marked ; the pauses, the intervals of silence, are 
written in advance as upon a book of music." — Jesuits, p. 132. 

The whole process requires thirty days, in perfect seclusion, and 
filled up with these efforts to excite the imagination, fastings, groan- 
ings, weepings, prostrations, suffocations and sighs, all performed ac- 
cording to the book. " His education thus prepared," says Prof. 
Quinet, "how is the Christian automaton completed? By what de- 
gree does he raise himself to the dogmas and mysteries of the gospel ? 
You shall see. If it is a question of a mystery, the prelude, before 
every other operation, is to represent to himself a certain corporeal 
place, with all its dependencies. For example, is it a question con- 
cerning the Virgin? the way is to figure to one's self a little house; 
of the nativity ? a grotto, a cavern, disposed in a convenient or incon- 
venient manner; of a scene of preaching in the gospel? a certain 
road, with its windings more or less steep. Is it concerning the 
bloody sweat? It is necessary, first of all, to figure to one's self a 
garden of a certain size, to measure the length, breadth, and area. 
As to the reign of Christ ? to represent to one's self country houses, 
fortresses ; after which, the first point is to imagine a human king 
among his people; to address one's self to this king, to converse with 
him ; little by little to change this king into Christ ; to substitute 
One's self for the people, and thus to place one's self in the true 
kingdom." — Jesuits, p. 134. Ignatius is quite original in all this. It 
is the w T ay to make sight seers and enthusiasts. He first befooled 
himself in this way in his nasty cave, and then made a book to show 
others how they could make themselves as ridiculous as he was him- 
self. Spiritual exercises, forsooth — he ought to have called it Rules to 
produce mental hallucination. Now, as we have no evidence that 
God has given to men judgment and understanding merely to have 
them torn up by the roots and their place supplied by w T ild fancy, we 
deny that an order founded upon that principle can be under his 
guidance. To suppose this, would be to make God a deceitful Jesuit. 



104 

3. We are fully satisfied that God is not the guide of this Order, be- 
cause of the wily arts laid down in their second fundamental book, the 
Directorium. This was prepared by Aquaviva, a general of the Order, 
and is supposed to unite the personal experience of the principal mem- 
bers, made upon the application of the method of Ignatius. Amongst 
these precious directions we find the following: To attract any one to 
the Society, one must not act abruptly. It is necessary to wait for some 
good opportunity; for example, when this person experiences some 
chagrin, or fails in business; also, an excellent advantage is found 
in vices themselves, (etiam optima est commoditas in ipsis vitiis, — 
Direc^ p. 17.) In the case of persons of consideration, or nobles, 
the complete exercises are not to be given, and the instructor is 
directed to go to the houses of these persons ; the thing is thus wore 
easily kept secret. — Ib. r p. 17* But, with the greater number, the 
first thing to be done is to reduce to the solitude of the cell him 
who is destined for the exercises* There, removed from the sight 
of men, and especially of his friends, he ought only to be visited 
by the instructor, and by a taciturn valet, who will only open his 
mouth upon the objects of his service. In this absolute isolation, put 
into his hands the Spiritual Exercises, and then abandon him to 
himself. Every day the instructor shall appear for a moment, to in- 
terrogate him, to excite him, to push him on in this way, from which 
there is no return. Finally, when this soul is thus misled and broken, 
and in the language of the Directorium, is as if suffocated in this agony, 
(in ilia quasi agonia suffoeaiur — p. 223,) it is good to let him then 
breathe a little; when he has recovered his breath to a certain point, it 
is the favorable m.oment r and he is left to his own choice;: he may return 
now, if he wishes, into the world r or enter another order. That is, just 
as the torture has wrung the last portion, of self-control from him, and 
the instructor can see his work is perfect, in the imbecility of his victim, 
he is to withdraw the torture, and then ask him to choose freely whether 
he will alienate himself forever* The inquisition exerted its ingenuity 
to find out the most exquisite means for torturing the body — the Society 
of Jesus the most exquisite tortures for the mind. God is not the guide 
of men who devise such infernal racks, nor of the fanatics who are re- 
duced to machines of obedience under them. 

4. The Constitutions of the Society, "Regulae Societaiis,' are a further 
evidence, to our mind, that God is not the guide of the Jesuits. The first 
object of Loyola was to make every member of his Society work, in 
order to aggrandize, gild, and glorify his prison. Hence, he labored to 
cut off all hope of promotion out of the Order. No one was to be 
either bishop, cardinal or pope, but all were to have their part in the 



, 



105 

immortality of the Order.* Perfect obedience is made the road to con- 
sideration, is the chief good of the Order. " The will of the Superior 
is to be taken as the expression of God's will. In obeying him, they 
obey Jesus Christ, to the guidance of whose providence, manifested by 
the orders of the Superior, each one is to commit himself with a perfect 
indifference, equal to that of a lifeless corpse, which is insensible to all 
impressions, or that of a staff in the hands of an old man, which obeys 
all the impulses it receives." — Int. to Life of St Ignatius, p. 14. Let 
Americans reflect on that rule, and remember that the head is at Rome. 
"In all the founders of Christian institutions," says Prof. Gluinet, "what 
I first perceive is the Christian, the man in him, the creature of God ; 
in the law of Loyola I see nothing but provincial fathers, 'overseers, 
rectors, examiners, consultors, admonitors, procurators, prefect of spirit- 
ual things, prefect of health, prefect of the library, of the refectory, 
watcher, economist, &c. Each of these functionaries has his particular 
law, very clear, very positive; it is impossible for each one of them not 
to know what he must do every hour in the day." — Jesuits, p. 148. 
These are good regulations for the government of a body of soldiers, 
who have no business to think, but simply to obey their leader ; but God's 
Word is not the fountain whence such a system flows. The Bible is 
not a system of rules for working slaves, but the book of liberty, in 
which the highest powers of an active mind are called forth to glorify 
the Creator. Man's freedom is guaranteed, and his service only accepted 
in proportion as it is unconstrained by human rules. God is not the 
guide of an order composed of lifeless corpses, but of a living, voluntary 
church, whose whole obedience is the gushings of the fountain of love 
in the heart to Christ. The very essence of Jesuitism, consequently, 
forbids the supposition that the " Order is under the special guidance of 
Almighty God." 

5. Lastly, we deny such guidance, because of the doctrines of the 
Jesuit writers on Morals. An order that can sanction murder, lying, 
perjury, rape, incest, and adultery, are guilty of blasphemy in talking of 
being under the guidance of God. That their casuists have done this, 
and their writings have been approved by the order, they dare not deny. 
The Provincial Letters of Pascal, filled with quotations from their 
fathers, has, for almost two centuries, been before the world, the stand- 
ing record of their shame. 

* The ambition of the individuals of the Order did not suffer this rule to continue long. 
The Society soon numbered Bishops, Archbishops, and Cardinals, amongst its members, 
and there is no position in the Churcb, now, that may not be occupied by them. 



106 



The Jesuits. — (Continued.) 
Having shown that from the origin, constitutions and doctrines of the 
Society of Jesus, it is impossible to suppose it is under the "guidance of 
Almighty God," without stripping God of all holiness of character, we 
have a word to say concerning the judgments which Mr. Brownson says 
have fallen upon France and Spain for warring upon the Order* France, 
he says, "has had her reward" — we suppose, in the Revolution. It might 
have occurred to the Reviewer, that what he regards as the judgment of 
God, for expelling the Jesuits, was, much more probably, a judgment for 
tolerating such a body in the kingdom. Where were Voltaire, D'Alam- 
bert and Diderot, the French Encyclopedists, educated? Let him 
look to the rolls of the Jesuit Colleges. There the disgust with Chris- 
tianity was first conceived; for they felt, if the Bible makes such a race 
as the Jesuits to curse the earth, to chain the mind, and exclude all light 
and science, the Bible itself is a curse, and could never have emanated 
from the Creator. That revolution was caused by the very policy of 
Rome, in keeping the mind in darkness. Spain, he says, " is reaping 
her reward." How? We suppose in her unsettled state, and being 
left to tear her own entrails. But how has this happened ? When the 
light of the Reformation broke forth, in the sixteenth century, and 
Science and Literature awoke from their long sleep, all Europe heaved 
under the influence of the new element. Spain participated. But the 
order of the Jesuits sprang up in this, the home of Ignatius and Xavier, 
of Laynez, Salmeron and Bobadilla. Under their influence the people 
and king resolved that, for two hundred years, not a new idea, not a new 
sentiment, should pass its frontier — and the resolution was kept. The 
stakes were prepared, and the fagots brought, and every man that trans- 
gressed, by showing an affection for Protestantism, for philosophy, for 
science, was reduced to ashes. Seville, alone, boasts of having, in 
twenty years, burned sixteen thousand men. The great king Philip II., 
of Spain, dug his cell at the foot of the Escurial, collected around him 
four hundred monks of the Order of St. Jerome, who were engaged day 
and night in the work of separating him from all that was living. 
From that sepulchre and that "soul of ice" came forth the chill that 
froze the Castillian heart, till then so passionate. Increasing light burst 
in, at last, upon this country; but it came from Revolutionary France, 
and with the soldiers of Napoleon. The people defended the country, 
and kept in league with the church ; but when the invaders were 
repelled, they sought from the church, and from the monarch, light and 
liberty. They were repulsed by the powers for which they had wasted 
their treasure and their blood — poor, naked, enslaved, the pity of the 



107 

nations, Spain became the prey to anarchy. And does the Jesuit now 
turn to his bleeding victim and say, ifs good for you — " you are now 
reaping your reward " for your unfaithfulness to me ! Shame on the 
Roman Catholic that can revile this nation, whose woes are traceable 
alone to its inviolable attachment to the Papacy. 

But Mr. B. touches, next, another key. Just now he spoke of the 
dreadful consequences of warring- on the Jesuits, and his appeal was to 
our fears; now he assures us they are so few and poor and weak that 
all this noise about them is ridiculous. He says: "It is remarkable, 
now, what dread the word Jesuit inspires. Who are the Jesuits'? 
Simple priests, vowed to poverty, devoted chiefly to educational and 
missionary labors, without power or influence, save what is in their 
faith, talents, learning, zeal, and sanctity." — p. 38. The Order has 
obtained for itself the reputation of being the most crafty, unprincipled 
race that ever lived; with no conscience; no will; bound to commit 
murder, treason, any thing that the General in Italy may choose to 
order "for the greater glory of God." Who would not feel a dread in 
having such a neighbor'? They are dreaded, it is true, not in a fair, 
open, manly contest, but because their mode of operation is secret, under- 
hand, in the dark; by deception, falsehood, eaves-dropping; they are 
like the stealthy assassin in the dark, with the dagger beneath the cloak. 
No wonder the word Jesuii has every where inspired dread. He says 
they are simple priests. Yet Mr. Brownson knows better. The three 
vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, make a Jesuit, and the single 
vow of obedience makes an affiliate of the Order. He may be, besides, 
just what his superiors direct — a lawyer, merchant, mechanic, laborer, 
servant, any thing that will promote the Order. One of their own num- 
ber says: "As they are to go every where, and bear the fruits of their 
zeal and the good odour of Jesus Christ to every creature, its members 
should not be distinguished by a peculiar costume, or those multiplied 
observances which in all other religious communities regulate the em- 
ployment of time, in a fixed and irrevocable manner: provided they do 
not omit the duties of prayer and meditation, when their duties to their 
neighbor and the greater glory of God leave him leisure, they are dis- 
pensed with other religious exercises."— Life of St. Ignatius, p. 11. 
It is this that makes them more to be dreaded. They have neither 
peculiar costume nor peculiar employment. They are in our houses, 
in our work-shops, in our counting rooms, in our schools and our 
churches; yet always spies, reporting the most confidential conversa- 
tions, watching every unguarded action, and forever eaves-dropping. 
Yet Mr. B. would make the impression that they are like the Ecclesi- 
astics of other churches, standing in their true character before the pub- 



108 

lie, and relying upon "their faith, talents, learning, zeal and sanctity," 
for their success. 

Again, Mr. B. tells us they are not only " simple priests, " but 
<c vowed to poverty." Now, that they take the vow of poverty, as 
individuals, is true, for it is part of the system that these corpses, or 
slaves, in the hand of another, bound to a blind obedience, should be 
entirely dependent on the head. But their poverty is a mere name. 
When was the Order poor? When they would deceive piety they talk 
of their poverty. When they would influence the powerful they tell 
of their riches. According to the rule submitted to the Council of Trent, 
the Society is composed of two sorts of establishments — of houses for the 
brethren, or p'ofessed houses, which can possess nothing as their own; 
and of colleges, which may acquire, inherit and possess. Thus, they 
have one hand to refuse, and another to accept. Now, see how the 
rule works. At the end of the sixteenth century the Society had 
twenty -one Professed Houses, and two hundred and ninety-three Col- 
leges; that is, twenty-one hands to refuse, and two hundred and ninety- 
three to accept and seize. This order of poor priests, besides having 
open to them the usual methods of enriching themselves, had, in former 
times, one that was peculiar. Under the pretext of promoting the 
success of their missions, and of facilitating the support of their mission- 
aries, they obtained a special license from the court of Rome, to trade 
with the nations they wished to convert ; in consequence of this, they 
engaged in an extensive and lucrative commerce, both in the East and 
West Indies; they opened warehouses in different parts of Europe, in 
which they vended their commodities. The immense amount of money 
involved in the failure of the Jesuit Lavalette, and which the Parliament 
of France compelled the Order to liquidate, shows something of the 
transactions of these "simple priests, vowed to poverty." In 1842 the 
annual income of the Order, in France, was estimated at 540,000 francs. 
But let any citizen of St. Louis look around him at the property held by 
the Order in this city and vicinity, and ask himself how much short of 
half a million of dollars it is worth. Yes, they are "simple priests, 
vowed to poverty, without power or influence ! " 

We have, succeeding the above, another, as we suppose, gross mis- 
statement. It is in reference to the number of members of the Order. 
Mr. Brownson says: "The Order counts, in all, less than five thousand 
members, dispersed on missions among infidels, or employed in the quiet 
and simple business of education." ~-p. 39. Prof. Michelet states, "ac- 
cording to a person who thinks himself well informed, there should be 
now, (1843,) in France, more than 970." The Rev. Jules Delaunay 
stated, a few weeks since, in a public lecture in Cincinnati, that "last 



109 

year there were, in the world, twenty-two thousand one hundred and 
eighteen Jesuits, eleven thousand four hundred and thirteen of whom 
were priests." These two statements agree ; for to suppose that one- fifth 
of all the Jesuits in the world were in France in 1843, is, to say the 
least, exceedingly improbable, whilst, according to Mr. Delaunay's 
statement, that the number exceeds twenty thousand, the proportion to 
France does not seem excessive. We believe, then, that this is another 
of Mr. B.'s "venial sins." He has stated a deliberate falsehood. 

To what is stated in the sermon reviewed, viz : "they [the Jesuits] 
will involve this land in troubles and conflicts," the Reviewer seems 
entirely to assent. "But," he says, "we would rather have war than 
peace with error, with sin, with the world . with the flesh, with the 
devil." — p. 40. It is well for the citizens of these United States to 
know, from the mouth-piece of the Order itself, what they are to ex- 
pect ; we shall at least have the consolation of knowing, when it comes, 
that we were duly apprised. The people of this country fled from the 
religious oppression of the quasi Jesuit Archbishop Laud, to a wil- 
derness, and endured the hardships of defending themselves from 
savages, and founded an empire, where liberty, civil and religious, 
might be enjoyed. We, in the spirit of genuine charity and liberty, 
sent back the invitation to the oppressed of Europe, to come and par- 
take of the asylum provided by our sweat and blood. Our artful 
enemies, not satisfied to see our happiness, and their victims thus 
escaping, avail themselves of our hospitable spirit, and press to our 
shores. Unsuspecting ourselves, we receive and foster them, till, 
warmed in our bosom and feeling their strength, they openly tell us, 
your freedom is error, your religion sin, your acts are of the world, 
the flesh and the devil, and it is part of our religion, and the very 
business for which we came, to make war upon you, and deprive you 
of your religious freedom, and destroy your institutions if we can. 
We have solemnly sworn that the Pope is " Christ's vicar-general, 
and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church 
throughout the earth; and that, by th< virtue of the keys of binding 
and loising, given to his holiness by our Saviour, Jesus Christ, he 
hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, 
and governments, all being illegal, without his sacred confirmation, 
and that they may safely be destroyed." Poor, silly sheep — the 
American people still lick the hand of their future murderer, even 
while he shows them the knife, and tells them it will soon be red in 
this war of liberty. A President of the United States appoints Jesuit 
Chaplains for our army, to conciliate the Romanists, and show the 
10 



110 

Mexicans that we do not war on their religion ! Let Americans 
remember, the rule of the Society published by themselves is, "I must 
look on myself as a dead body, which of itself has no motion; or as a 
staff in a man's hand, which he takes and leaves aside, as he finds 
convenient, so that the Society may make use of me in what manner 
it shall judge necessary." — Father Bonhour's Life of St. Ignatius, p. 
370. Then let them remember that the despotic head of that Society 
is in Rome, closetted with the Pope and the ambassadors of all the 
despots of Europe. 

Mr. Brownson thinks there is something very incompatible in 
what is said in the Sermon, concerning the expulsion of the Order 
of Jesuits from such despotic countries as Spain, Portugal and France, 
in former times, and the charge made that they are the enemies of the 
liberty of this republic. Because "tyrants are everywhere opposed 
to the Order," he infers it must be friendly to liberty. But tyrants 
are very apt to be opposed to each other. Just now r , Nicholas, of 
Russia, and Gregory XVI., the two most despotic princes in nominal 
Christendom, and the only two that systematically persecute for con- 
science sake, are very friendly. Nicholas wanted to form a matrimo- 
nial connexion with a papal state, and this required a dispensation 
from the Pope. Gregory wanted assistance to keep down his rebel- 
lious subjects in Romagna, and the powerful Emperor of the North 
mi^ht be depended on where light was to be kept from the mind and 
freedom from the country, and thus they joined hand in hand in their 
work of iniquity, because they can be mutually helpful. But let Nicho- 
las see, that, by a thrust at the vitals of the Pope, he can serve himself, 
who supposes that he would hesitate ? Let Gregory see that he can 
extend the spiritual pow r er of his see, by thundering his anathema at 
the Russian heretic, and who supposes he would pause a moment? 
They are both robbers of men's rights, and, consequently, can have no 
other regard for each other than that which mutual fear inspires. The 
Jesuits are essentially despots — it is interwoven with every feature 
of their constitutions. They seek universal empire, and it matters 
little to them whether the government be free or despotic, so long as 
they are not the kings. Hence it is that they have been as inimical 
to the republic of Venice as to the monarchy of Spain. Only in 
Paraguay, where they reigned absolute, and where they labored to 
keep the poor Indians in ignorance of the language of every civilized 
nation of the world, lest they should be dethroned — only there they 
were satisfied. They will profess to love liberty, or to love tyranny, 
just as may be most useful, and "for the greater glory of God," in 

eir sense. They will crawl upon, and slime over, any institutions, 



Ill 

from the tribunal of the Inquisition down to a Jacobin club, but it is 
only in order to the more easily swallowing down the whole. 



Jesuit Education, 
It was stated in the sermon reviewed by Mr. Brownson, that the 
wonderful assiduity of Rome, in establishing schools all over the 
country, could not arise from the desire to sustain our republican in- 
stitutions, because she chooses despotism as the best government for 
her own subjects in Italy; neither could it be because she supposed 
education essential to the progress of pure religion, for, if so, she 
would surely educate her own children; but the children in the 
ecclesiastical states, under her sway, are kept in ignorance. To 
which the reviewer, in his off-hand way, replies : "The population of 
the ecclesiastical states is about two and a half millions. In these 
states there are seven universities; and in the city of Rome, with a 
population of one hundred and fifty thousand, there are, for the chil- 
dren of the poorer and middle classes, at least three hundred and eighty 
schools, the greater part supported by private munificence." — p. 39. 
This statement, so far as appears, restg upon the ipse dixit of Orestes 
A. Brownson, which, our readers are by this time aware, is not the 
best authority. That there are seven colleges, or universities if he 
chooses, in the ecclesiastical states, we believe is true, containing, 
says Malte Brun, two thousand two hundred and fifty pupils. But, 
suppose a man should design to prove that there was no ignorance in 
Oxfordshire, England, and present this argument: the population 0f 
Oxfordshire is one hundred and fifty thousand, and in this county 
there are twenty-tWo colleges. Would it prove anything to the 
purpose ? The question would immediately arise, does Oxfordshire 
furnish the pupils of those colleges, or are they drawn from the three 
kingdoms of Great Britain and all the world besides ? The priests 
and sons of nobles are educated in these colleges of the ecclesiastical 
states, but it remains to be shown that the rest of the population profit 
by them. One of these universities, that of Bologna, once drew stu- 
dents from all parts of Europe, and numbered ten thousand pupils, 
but it was before Rome felt the necessity of shutting out the light from 
her colleges; now it numbers scarce, five hundred and fifty.. Thus, 
these ancient seats of science mark, distinctly enough, the decay of 
i| learning where Rome holds the power. But, that the city of Rome 
1 contains at least three hundred and eighty schools, for the poorer and 
! i middle classes, is — mysterious. We can only meet figures with figures. 



112 

Make Brun, in his Statistical Tables of the Population in Rome, gives 
"Pupils in Seminaries, in 1825, four hundred and sixty-eight;" whilst 
the number of "children at the age of communion was ninety-seven 
thousand two hundred and forty-nine." This, it is true, is twenty-five 
years ago, but we have yet to hear of any very recent revival of the 
spirit of universal education in that region.* But we will give still 
further testimony from the author just cited. He says : "A government 
wholly pacific, like that of Rome, might console itself for its political 
nullity, by encouraging and protecting letters, sciences, and arts, but an 
intellectual deadness seems to pervade the Roman States. The sciences 
are less cultivated than in the rest of Italy, and the town, which contains 
inexhaustible treasures for the archaeologist, possesses no antiquarian 
worthy of being compared with many in Germany or France." "The 
people in the upper classes are as indolent and ill-informed as the present 
"Venetian nobles; the reading of the young people is mostly confined to 
the romances of Voltaire; and the girls, in order to make up for the time 
lost in a convent, read frivolous and dangerous works. The lower 
orders of the town can read and write; but such knowledge is by no 
means common in the rural districts." — Un. Geog., vol. v., p. 293. 
This account is the more reliable, because it is the calm statement of a 
standard work on Science, where there could exist no conceivable 
motive for misrepresentation. 

Our Reviewer's next remark looks a little spiteful. "To assert," he 
says, "that the Church holds that 'ignorance is the mother of devotion,' 
betrays more ignorance than malice. If it -were so we should have 
fewer Protestants in the world. The Church undoubtedly holds that 
there may be false learning, false philosophy, deceitful, vain, that puffs 
up, makes its possessors wise in their own conceit, indocile, and un- 
willing to bow in meekness and humility to the Word of God, (viz: to 
the Pope and Councils,) and such learning and philosophy she unques- 
tionably does not encourage; for she holds and teaches what her invisi- 
ble Spouse has said : ' Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the 
kingdom of heaven.' But real knowledge, but true learning, that 
knowledge and learning which make men 'wise unto salvation,' she 
does her best to impart and diffuse." — p. 39. Now, this seems at last 
but a candid admission of what Mr. B. denies at the outset of the quota- 
tion. He makes real knowledge and true learning to consist in that 



* It has been suggested to me, by a gentleman for several years resident in Rome, that 
Mr. Brownson makes up his number by counting the labours of very ignorant priests, or a 
class of ecclesiastics still lower, called Abbates, who, having no other employment, peddle 
instruction. For a few copper coins they teach reading, bad penmanship, and the first 
rules of arithmetic. Many of these schools (so called) have not more than three or four 
pupils. 



113 

which "makes men wise unto salvation." That is, with him, a knowl- 
edge of the Romish rites and superstitions, constituting her religion, 
because Rome believes these save without any other knowledge. 
Hence, this is what "she does her best to impart and diffuse." Then 
all other learning and philosophy, not subservient to these superstitions 
and dogmas, she holds to be "false learning, false philosophy, deceitful, 
vain," &c. Well, we are entirely agreed, but if that is not teaching 
that ^'ignorance is the mother of devotion," we do not know what is. 
But let us take the rule of Scripture, "by their fruits ye shall know 
them." What is the learning Rome has condemned ? When Galileo 
published his series of dialogues, demonstrating the motion of the earth 
round the sun, the infallible Pope, Urban VIII , charged him with 
heresy, and handed him over to the Holy Inquisition. Here, after eight 
long years of imprisonment, and, according to the published judgment 
of the inqu'si'ors, being put to the "rigorous examination," (alrigoroso 
esame,) which always means, in the books of the Inquisition, the torture^ 
they forced him to sign, on the 22d July, 1633, an abjuration, of which 
the following is a part: "But whereas, notwithstanding, after I had 
been legally enjoined and commanded by this holy office, to abandon 
wholly that false opinion, which maintains that the sun is the centre of 
the universe, and immoveable, and that I should not hold, defend, or in 
any way, either by word or writing, teach the aforesaid false doctrine ; 
and, whereas, also, after it had been notified to me. that the aforesaid 
doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture, I wrote and published a book, 
in which I treated of the doctrine which had been condemned, and pro- 
duced reasons of great force in favor of it, without giving any answers 
to them, for which I have been judged by the holy office to have 
incurred a strong suspicion of heresy, viz: for believing that the sun is 
the centre of the world, and that the earth is not the centre, but moves. 
Being, therefore, willing to remove from the minds of your eminences 
and of every Catholic Christian, this strong suspicion, which has been 
legally conceived against me, I do, with a sincere heart, and a true 
faith, abjure, curse, and detest, not only the aforesaid errors and heresies, 
but generally every other error and opinion which may be contrary to 
the aforesaid holy Church; and I swear that, for the future, I will 
never more say or assert, either by word or writing, anything that shall 
give occasion for a like suspicion; but that if I should know any heretic 
or person suspected of heresy, I will inform against him to this holy 
office, or to the inquisitor or ordinary of the place in which I shall then 
be." This, then, is the kind of learning that makes men "indocile and 
unwilling to bow in meekness and humility to the Word of God," as in- 
terpreted by the holy mother church, and hence is "deceitfnl, vaii), 
10* 



114 

puffs up," and to be condemned. On one side is the book of the ecclesi- 
astical canon> and decrees ot the Holy See; on the other the book of 
the Universe, and the eternal laws of geometry. The Church is in 
conflict with the brazen law of Creatic n, and dooms the hapless believer 
in the evidences of that law, as reported to him by his own senses, to true 
prison, the punishment of the cord, the wooden horse, or the iron bus- 
kin, until, when seventy years of age, and blind and worn out by suffer- 
ing, he exclaims, u una tristizia e melancol'ia immtasa me opprezzan" 
(hi immense sadness and melancholy overwhelms me,) he signs the 
abjuration which gives the lie to his senses, in order to escape bi-ing 
burned at the stake. lie was indocile, and puffed up with vain, deceit- 
ful philosophy, says Mr. Brownson. This false learning and vain 
philosophy make heretics, says the Church. Yet she does not teack 
that -ignorance is the mother of devotion" — oh, no! She believes in 
true learning! Galileo was guilty of doing just what Copernicus had 
done before him ; what has been done by Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pas- 
cal. Linnaeus and Lord Bacon— looked further into the laws of tho 
Universe than others had d ne before him : and this was heresy, and for 
it he was punished, compelled to abjure his discoveries, promise neither 
to Leach nor write anymore, and become a partner in the holy office by 
promising to inform against all men of Science. Such is the patronage 
Rone has extended to Science. In this day she has decreed no rail- 
roads shall penetrate the Ecclesiastical States, and even gas-lights she 
protests against, it seems, lest they should dispel her mora! daikness* 
A few years since, Cardinal Lambrusebini, Minister of Slate, forbade 
all professional men of the Ecclesiaitica' S:ate^ at ending any scientific 
Congress of Italy. Can any one be so blind as not to see that Rome 
has herse'f declared her divorce from Science? And why? Is it not 
because she is af aid of her system— her devotion? Science makes 
men think for themselves; hence they become indocile, tmtractable, 
not willing to yield to the Holy Si e their common sense, and hence, 
with her, ignorance is blessed, and is the mother of devotion. 



Jesuit Education. — ( Continued.) 

Mr. Brownson affects great surprise that whilst we charge Rome 

with being in league with darkness and the enemy of learninsr, we 

should at the same time be afraid of Jesuit education. He asks, "Is 

Protestantism not proof against light? We thought it was the boast 

r its friends that it was born of the advanced intelligence of the hu» 

race, and had the capacity to expand and adapt itself to every 



115 

change of the human intellect. A moment ago the Doctor upbraided 
us with our love of ignorance, accused us of not educating our chil- 
dren ; and now he is afraid, if we educate, it will be all up with Pro- 
testants."— p. 40. We answer, there is a way of educating people 
into darkness. Mr. B. has told us in the preceding paragraph, " For 
ourselves, we do not suffer ourselves to be humbugged by the cry 
about education. Give us the right sort of education, and the more 
of it the better ; give us the wrong sort, and the less of it the better." 
Here, we think, hi has answered himself, and all in the same breath. 
But Mr. B. likes the " right sort of education" — now, let us see 
what that "right sort" is. He says, "we ourselves have our sons 
in the colleges of the Jesuits, and, in placing them there, we i'eel that 
we are discharging our duty as a father to them, and as a citizen to 
the country." — p. 41. Then Jesuit education is his " right sort." 
The reader is prepared to expect that the education Mr. B. has sought 
for his s< ns is one that will abjure all that science which Rome has 
opened a crusade against. He has told us that he abjures the learn- 
ing- and philosophy that, make men " indocile and unwilling to bow in 
meekness and humility to the word of God," as interpreted by Holy 
Mother, for it will be remembered that the Bible is a book of riddles, 
in his opinion, if taken alone. But what is this Jesuit education? 
Let Cerutti, a Jesuit of Turin, speak : " As we swathe the limbs of 
an infant in the cradle to give them a right proportion, il is necessary 
from his earliest youth to swath ., so to speak, his w 11, that it may pre- 
serve, through the rest of his life, a happy and salutary suppleness." 
— Apologie de Vln-tiiut des Jsswfes, p. 330. That is, educate away his 
will, so that he wall not think for himself, but be a supple tool in the 
hands of the Church. This destroys all " indocility" and uniracta- 
bleness. Again: the Society, in rules intended to be secret, has ar- 
ranged the constitution of scienc - under the title of Ratio Studiorum, 
One of the first injunctions met with is this : '■ Let no one, even in 
meters which are of no danger for piety, ever introduce a new ques- 
tion." This is to educate the young into darkness. The design of 
Jesuit colleges is to seize on science and strangle it by education. 
That which Mr. B. says sneeringly of Protestantism is true : it " was 
born of the advanced intelligence of the human race, and has the ca- 
pacity to expand the human intellect." The Jesuits organized a sys- 
tem of education to prevent that expansion, and thercbv arrest the 
progress of Protestantism, for Rome saw the two things were insepa- 
rable. The following passage from Prof. Quinet, of the College of 
France, sets their education in the proper light : ' The founders of 
the Order perfectly understood the instincts of their times J they are 



116 

born in the midst of a movement of innovation which seizes upon all 
souls ; the spirit of creation, of discovery, overflows everywhere ; it 
attracts and carries away the world. In this sort of intoxication of 
science, poesy, philosophy, men felt themselves precipitated towards 
an unknown future. How to stop, suspend, freeze the human 
thought, in the midst of this bound, is the inquiry. There was only 
one way ; it was that which the chiefs of the Order of Jesus attempt- 
ed ; to make themselves the representatives of this tendency, to obey 
it, in order the better to arrest it ; to build over all the earth, houses 
of science, in order to imprison the flight of science; to give to the 
mind an apparent movement, which should render impossible for it 
all real movement; to consume it in an incessant gymnastics, and, un- 
der the false resemblance of activity, to arrest the curiosity ; to ex- 
tinguish in its beginning the genius of discovery ; to stifle knowledge 
under the dust of books; in a word, to cause the unquiet thought of 
the sixteenth century to turn upon a wheel of Ixion; this was, from 
its origin, the great plan of education followed with so much pru- 
dence, and so consummate an art. Never was set so much reason to 
conspire against reason." — The Jesuits, pp. 203, 204. 

We appeal now to our readers and to our fellow-citizens through- 
out this land of light and knowledge, where science has hitherto 
been unchained, is this in ) r our estimation the "right sort of educa- 
tion ?" Are you willing to suffer yourselves to be humbugged by a 
parade of names of sciences which it is the fixed rule of the Jesuits 
never to teach, but to deceive your sons by impressing them with the 
belief that their castrated books and lectures contain them ? We 
say with the Reviewer, ' ; give us the right sort of education, and the 
more of it the better." But God forbid that the people of these 
United States should fall into the snare the Jesuits have set for them, 
by supposing that a system of education designed to swathe the will, 
and strangle free inquiry, is the (i right sort of education." 

Mr. Brownson thinks the author of the sermon has erred in saying 
that the Order of the Jesuits has not produced a single name above 
mediocrity since its restoration in 1814. He says, " It is possible 
that he is not acquainted with all the names the Order has produced 
since its restoration, for we could mention some of the names which 
are at least above mediocrity." — p. 41. We would have been glad 
to have seen these names known to science, and wonder that Mr. B. 
did not think fit to silence all caviling by mentioning them. It is 
true, that it is very hard to know " all the names the Order has pro- 
duced," for it works too much in the dark to let the world know who 
are its members. But there is good reason to believe (hat the mod- 



117 

esty of the Order never required it to hold back a name that it had 
the most remote idea could reflect any lustre upon it. It is some evi- 
dence at least of mental paucity that where a " not very remarkable 
Sermon on the Dangers of Jesuit Instruction" is preached within the 
very shadow of the walls of one of their Universities, it becomes 
necessary to send all the way to Boston and procure the services of 
such a man as Mr. Brownson to reply to it. That the Jesuits did 
not think it beneath their notice, as they at first alleged, is manifest 
from the extraordinary notes of joy that burst from their organ, the 
" News Letter," when the Review made its appearance here ; from 
their zeal in reprinting it, and from their subsequent dispersion of 
that reprint, on the wings of the wind, from the University build- 
ings. Besides, if the author has erred, it has been in very good 
company. Professor Michelet, whose opportunities to know the men 
of the Order Mr. B. will scarcely question, goes much further ; he 
says, " The machinery of the Jesuits has been active and powerful, 
but it has made nothing living, there always has been wanting to it, 
what for all society is the highest sign of life, there has been wanting 
the great man. Not a man has it produced in three hundred years." 
— Jesuit, p. 22. 

We return again to the subject of Jesuit Schools. The Reviewer 
says : " As educators, the French University seems to stand in awe 
of them. The Doctor would do well to become acquainted with their 
schools, before undertaking to discuss their merits. Perhaps, were 
he to do so, he would not hazard the assertion, that 'a graduate of 
one of these Universities is not qualified to enter the Junior Class at 
Princeton, Yale, or any of the more respectable Protestant Colleges 
of our land.'" — p. 41. The gentlemen of the French University 
would be amused with the idea of standing in awe of the Jesuits " as 
educators." From every thing we have seen of the difficulty be- 
tween them, the awe has been on the other side. It was the power 
which the University possessed that led the Jesuits to intriguing with 
the Government that they might have the control of the subject — 
that led them to create disturbances, and send their creatures to the 
Lecture rooms of the Professors to create confusion. Who can sup- 
pose that they would have resorted to such disgraceful tricks if en- 
gaged in a successful competition? No — the French University had 
no fears of them "as educators;" but, as dark, designing intriguers, 
seeking the destruction of science and human liberty, they felt called 
upon to expose their machinations and whole system, and the result 
has been seen. The Government gave them notice, for the third 
time, to leave the kingdom. 



118 

Without boasting any peculiar competency to judge of the merits 
of their system of education, we beg leave to say that we have lived 
some eighteen years beside one of the Jesuit Schools. We have 
been through its halls ; examined its facilities for imparting knowl- 
edge \ conversed with its Professors j been intimate with its students 
and graduates ; and compared the course of studies taught, and the 
actual knowledge acquired, with similar facilities and acquirements 
in other colleges, and therefore we suppose we have had opportunity y 
at least, for coming to a correct conclusion. What has been said in 
the sermon concerning the qualifications of graduates from more than 
one of these Universities, is not an opinion hazarded, but the state- 
ment of a fact, notorious in this community, and which Mr. B. can 
have verified by addressing the Faculty of the College of New Jer- 
sey, or of Yale. 

The system of education in Jesuit Colleges is radically defective, 
and must ever remain so, from the very character of the Order, .which 
requires a division of learning into suspicious sciences, and thos-e not 
suspicious. Latin is preserved, but no Latin literature, except in the 
editions arranged by the Jesuits. Modern Literature and Philosophy 
belong to the class suspicious, and are almost entirely heresies. 
Mathematics may be trusted, and so may Rhetoric and Logic. But 
History must come through a Jesuit purgation ; and Political Econo- 
my, Political Ethics, Geology and its kindred Sciences, will make men 
" indocile ;" that is, heretics. The course of learning laid down by 
the founder of the Order, shows the incapacity of the masters in these 
institutions to instruct in our day. "Ignatius ordains, that, after two 
years of noviceship, they apply themselves to study, and points out 
those branches in which they are to engage; namely, the learned lan- 
guages, poetry, rhetoric, philosophy, theology, ecclesiastical history 
and the Holy Scriptures." — Bonhour^s Life, of Ig., p. 231. In this 
wretchedly meagre list, let no one suppose that philosophy means 
anything resembling the sciences which are included in the term in 
our day ; it is philosophy as understood in the sixteenth century. It 
is the remark of Michelet, that " their method of education, even in 
its judicious parts, is spoiled by the petty spirit ; by the excessive 
divisions of time and of different studies. Everything is meanly cut 
up; a quarter of. an hour for four lines of Cicero, another quarter for 
Virgil, &c. Add to this their mania for arranging authors, of mixing 
up their own style with them, of giving the ancients the dress of 
Jesuits." Then the whole establishment is governed and ruled like 
a parcel of automatons ; at the pulling of the wire they all get up, 
and they all lie down ; they come in and they go out, they study and 



119 

they play ; things the most minute as well as of the utmost moment 
are all governed by inflexible rules. The external is well eared for, 
the internal may come if it can. But worst of all, the whole system 
is one of mutual surveillance, mutual denunciation. " The Superior 
is surrounded by his consulters; the priests, novices, pupils, by their 
brethren or comrades, who may denounce them" — who are encour- 
aged to do so. Go where you will in a Jesuit Institution, and you 
may be assured that your most secret act or word is known. If ever 
there was a s} r stem to make a child mean, low-spirited and sneaking, 
it is this. 

It is a common deception practised by the officers of these Institu- 
tions upon Protestant parents, to assure them that they do not inter- 
fere with the religious opinions of their pupils. They at the same 
time knowing that the rules of the Society, which they are sworn to 
comply with, requires the contrary. One of their own number says: 
" Ignatius wished that the colleges of the Society should be so many 
temples, where the Science of Salvation should be no less an object of 
study, than the acquisition of worldly knowledge." Then he gives 
the following quotation from the Ratio Studiorum : " Let the principle 
design of each professor be to form the youthful mind to veneration 
for the Supreme Being, and to instill into it, both in class and else- 
where, the virtues by which He is to be pleased. The scholars are 
to assist each day at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. They are to 
receive, from time to time, pious exhortations; they are to he excited to 
the frequentat ion of the Sacraments, and practice of prayer. They are 
to be familiarized with all the practices of piety, and habituated to a 
tender and sincere devotion to the Holy Virgin. By means of fre- 
quent catechetical instructions, they are to be solidly established in 
the principles and duties of religion." — Inst, of the Jesuits, p. 17. 
Again, in the "Life of St. Ignatius," Father Bonhours says, "Ig- 
natius ordered the students daily to hear mass, to go monthly to con- 
fession, to begin their studies by making a short prayer, and to attend 
once a week to instructions in the Catechism, and in the rules of a 
good life. He also prescribed to the masters, on every seasonable 
occasion, both in school and out of it, to speak familiarly to them of 
heavenly things." — p. 269. Now, we have shown in a former num- 
ber that the summit of virtue among Jesuits is found in obedience ; 
what hope, then, can a parent have, that when the rules of the Order 
and the authoritative command of the founder stand on the one hand, 
and a deceitful promise made in the face of the rules and that com- 
mand on the other, that the oft repeated assurances will be complied 
with. No; their colleges are " so many temples to teach the (Romish) 



120 

Science of Salvation ;" and hence every clandestine art to make the 
child abjure the religion of his fathers, and curse his parents as here- 
tics, will be resorted to. 

Concerning female instruction in the Convents, Mr. B. says, " we 
want no better proof of their excellency than the simple fact, that 
Protestants, notwithstanding their prejudices against the religious 
orders, send, and are eager to send, their daughters to them." — p. 42. 
We are sorry to say that the fact stated here, we believe, is in many 
places true, and many are the Protestant parents who have bitterly 
repented their folly subsequently. Such has been the case in this 
city ; but we rejoice to know that a great and salutary reform has 
taken place, and fully believe, that, as this subject is brought more 
fully before the public, the time is not distant when parents will 
shun these schools as they would so many pest-houses. It may be 
well here to remind our readers, that one of these Orders, ' ; the ladies 
o; the Sacred Heart," are a branch of the Order of Jesuits ; they are 
not only directed and governed by th m, but since 1823 they have the 
same constitutions. The pecuniary interests of the two branches 
must be common to a certain extent, since the Jesuits, on their return 
after the Revolution of July, in France, were aided from the chest of 
the Sacred He.irl.* The Ligorians, Sulpicians, Lazarists, and the 
Sisters of Charity and ladies of the Visitation, are also affiliated Or- 
ders, under the direction of the Jesuits. Loyola prohibited the So- 
ciety from governing women ; he having tried the experiment in his 
own person, came to the onclusion, "that the cirection of these pious 
ladies was more troublesome than that of the whole Society ;" but his 
wiser successors have revoked this regulation. It has been found by 
the Order t ai the simple and natural means was to catch wild birds 
by tame ones. These polished, gentle, adroit and charming Jesuit- 
esses, generally go before the Jesuits, put everywhere oil an>; honey, 
and smooth the way. They delight women by making themselves 
sisters, friends, whatever they wish, bu especially they appeal to 
mothers, touching the tender point — the poor maternal heart. From 
true friendship, they consent to take the young girl ; and the mother, 
who otherwise would never have been separated from her, confides 
her very readily to their gentle hands. Thus the Jesuits get into 
their hands the daughters of the influential families of the place. In 



* Only last February the Roman Catholic citizens of Pisa resisted, by violence, an attempt 
to introduce ladies of the Sacred Heart into that city, mi a protest signed by one hundred 
»nd thirty of the most eminent citizens of the place, and thirty-six Professors of the Uni- 
rersity, they being ecclesiastics, was addressed to the Government, solely on the grouad 
that these ladies belong entirely to the " Company of Jesus." 



121 

a few years these little girls become wives and mothers. Whoever 
has the woman, is sure to have the men in the long run. 

In speaking of the excellency of these schools, Mr. B. falls into an 
exstacy. We give an extract as a beautiful specimen of rodomontade. 
*< There is something in the very atmosphere of the Catholic schools 
that gives an inexpressible charm to the female character, which we 
have never found in a Protestant, not brought up in some degree un- 
der Catholic influence. There is a purity, a delicacy, a sweetness, a 
gentleness, a grace, a dignity, about a Catholic lady, that you shall 
look in vain for in a purely Protestant lady, however high-born or 
well-bred. It is only in the Catholic lady that woman appears in all 
her loveliness, worth, and glory. It is Catholicity that has wrought 
out woman's emancipation, elevated her from her former menial con- 
dition, rescued her from the harem of the voluptuary, and made her 
the companion, and not unfrequently, more than the companion of 
man." — p. 42. Poor, unhappy Protestants ! You can never possess 
true purity, delicacy, sweetness, gentleness, grace and dignity. Your 
religion is constantly throwing you back into a state of barbarism. 
How ought you to sigh for the return of the days of the thirteenth, 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries ; the return of the dark ages, when 
the glorious Roman Church elevated females from their menial condi- 
tion, and the pure nuns and priests rescued them from the harem of 
the voluptuary. Your daughters can never reach that purity attained 
by Lucretia Borgia, and others, who were reared in the very sunshine 
of the Roman Court. We learn also from this piece of enlighten- 
ment, why it is that the females of such Roman Catholic countries as 
France, and Italy, and Spain, are so much more chaste and pure, and 
free from the very appearance of gallantry than those of such unhap- 
py Protestant countries as England and the United States. But to be 
serious, if this degenerate scion of a Puritan stock is disposed to re- 
vile the mother that bore him, and the sisters that were nourished at 
his side, as those in whom the purity, loveliness, worth and glory of 
the female character never appeared, we cannot make reprisals upon 
the females who may adorn society in the communion he has em- 
braced. It is enough for us to know they would scorn to adopt the 
sentiments he has unblushingly printed. We rejoice to say we have 
found delicacy, loveliness and dignity amongst females of the Roman 
Church, but they were possessed of too much good serr*e ever to 
reckon it to the account of their convent education. We have heard 
Roman mothers frequently apologize for the rudeness of their daugh- 
ter's manners, on the ground that they were just from the convent. 
They have looked to a mother's influence over their young hearts for 
11 



122 

the purity and delicacy they desired to cultivate, and to the influence 
of society, mixed with Protestantism as it was, for the grace and 
dignity they wished them to acquire. Mr. B. should be particularly 
careful how he touches upon conventual purity and harems. Has he 
ever heard of a Roman Catholic Bishop called Scipio de Ricci, and 
of a work he wrote on that subject? A word to the wise is suffi- 
cient. 



Protestant Civil Government contrasted with Papal. 
The concluding paragraph of the Review is too remarkable to be 
passed without some notice. The Reviewer says of the Roman 
Church, " It is now firmly established in this country, and persecu- 
tion will but cause it to thrive. Our countrymen may be grieved 
that it is so ; but it is useless for them to kick against the decrees of 
Almighty God. They have had an open field and fair play for Pro- 
testantism. Here, Protestantism has had free scope, has reigned 
without a rival, and proved what she could do, and that her best is 
evil; for the very good she boasts is not hers." — p. 43. In the vo- 
cabulary of Rome, resistance offered to her claim of universal spirit- 
ual empire, by reason and light, is persecuting her. When she has 
the power, as in Italy and Spain, subjecting dissenters to the dun- 
geon, the tortures of the Inquisition and the avto defe, is merely a 
little salutary discipline. The only persecution Romanists have ever 
experienced under this Government, or ever can experience, is moral 
suasion. They are a sect of religionists, and as such have rights, 
which, so long as they do not interfere v» T ith the rights of others, the 
Government is bound to protect. Would that we could say the same 
of the Governments where she rules. So long as Rome confines 
herself to truth and moral force, we shall never charge her with per- 
secution. We are not of the number who, when beaten in an argu- 
ment, put up this cry to excite sympathy or cover our defeat. But 
the species of persecution she most dreads, that of light and truth, she 
must experience in this land of freedom. She has ventured upon a 
hazardous experiment in this country ; one totally unknown in her 
past historj'-. Her course heretofore has been, even as now in the 
Ecclesiastical States, to shut out light, to draw an impassable cordon 
around her subjects. Her plan now is to rush them into an ocean of 
light, with such rapidity, that it shall be extinguished by the foreign 
masses before her own material has time to kindle. She has freely 
ventured upon the experiment, and must expect that every resistance 



123 

truth can make will be offered, that her most secret designs will be 
ripped up and exposed to the light of day, and no cry of persecution 
or winnings after the sympathy of nominal Protestants can save her. 
And if, instead of the bright visions that now dazzle the eyes of Mr. 
Brownson, the experiment should result in freeing her subjects, sent 
to these shores, from spiritual as well as civil despotism, she may 
at least console herself with the reflection, that the battle was not lost 
for lack of boldness in the conception of the plan. 

Mr. Brownson has the courage to present the issue growing out of 
the comparative claims of this free Government and those of Roman 
Catholic countries, and we cheerfully accept it. "Here," he says, 
" Protestantism has had free scope, has reigned without a rival, and 
proved what she could do." And what has she done ? We answer, 
everything that in reason could have been proposed, and greatly more 
than a chastened expectation could have anticipated. The United 
States have afforded a safe and happy asylum to the oppressed of all 
nations, for more than half a century. Have increased from thirteen 
to twenty-eight free and independent States. The population has 
been constantly augmenting since the organization of the Government ; 
then the people numbered but three millions, and in little more than 
half a century they are twenty millions. Their prosperity has been 
marked no less strikingly by the increase of wealth and capital, in- 
vested in all the industrial arts ; more than three hundred millions of 
dollars are invested in manufactures, and her commercial capital ex- 
ceeds four hundred millions. The progress of education has been 
commensurate with her progress and wealth ; common education is 
placed within the reach of every child, and her halls of science are 
accessible to all ; her people are emphatically a reading people, and 
half the periodicals published in the w*orld are the product of this 
country. Every guarantee of freedom known in the world is here 
enjoyed : trial by jury ; habeas corpus ; full and free representation ; 
and the rights of conscience secured by having all religions equally 
protected. Her prosperity is the result of her institutions ; no 
chance hits, or meteoric periods occur in her history, but her march 
has been a steady progress to prosperity and power, showing that it 
results from the expansive character of her fundamental institutions. 
And as the surest proof of the excellent working of her institutions, 
and the happy results in those governed, she has no standing army, 
save a few men to garrison out-posts and keep her fortifications in re- 
pair ; no direct tax ; and no national debt. Abroad, her flag com- 
mands the respect of every nation, and her power is feared. The 
friends of human rights and civil freedora 5 in all lands, have hailed her 



"124 

government as the dawn of universal liberty to the oppressed of the 
earth, whilst her example is hated by every despotic prince. This is 
the only country, since the name was adopted, in which there has 
been " an open field and fair play for Protestantism," and this is 
what it has done. Now, let the annals of the world be searched, and 
any nation produced, Pagan, Mohammedan, Jew, or Christian, where 
similar results have been worked out. Protestantism in the United 
States, then, stands upon a proud eminence, and fears comparison 
with no nation upon the earth. Now let us see what Romanism has 
done for the freedom and happiness of the countries she has gov- 
erned. 

Italy is the country where the national policy and national institu- 
tions of Romanism are to be studied, because there she has been without 
a mistress; there is the seat of her temporal power: all other nations 
over whom she has had any control have been used to enrich the patri- 
mony of St. Peter. Here, then, we are to expect a development of all 
her wisdom and benevolence, in showering upon the people the bless- 
ings of freedom, of national wealth, of intelligence and holiness. What 
is the history of Romanism in Italy? The Lombards, to whom this 
country fell a prey in the general division of the Roman Empire, how- 
ever rude and unpolished when first they came into Italy, divested them- 
selves, by insensible degrees, of their native barbarity, and, after they 
became a Christian people, were marked for their justice, humanity, and 
good government. u Under the government of the Lombards," says 
Paiilus Diaconus, "no violence was committed, no man was unjustly 
dispossessed of his property, none oppressed with taxes; theft, robberies, 
murder and adultery, were seldom heard of; every one went, without 
apprehension of danger, whither he pleased." Under such a govern- 
ment Italy ought to have taken a place among the nations of the earth 
commensurate with the extent and importance of her territory. And 
what prevented this? Pope Stephen II., sighing for temporal power, 
invited a foreigner, Pepin of France, to enter Italy and wrench from the 
Lombards a portion of their territory, to be bestowed upon St. Peter. 
The Dukedom of Rome, the Exarchate of Ravenna, and the Pentapolis, 
(now Marca d'Ancona,) became the temporal kingdom of the Pope. 
But the Lombards were neighbors still too powerful for this Ecclesias- 
tical King, and again the Pope beckoned to the foreigner, and the son 
of Pepin crushed the Lombards, and established himself. From that 
day onward, to divide into petty states the whole country, in order to 
extend their own power, has been the unvarying policy of the Popes. 
Too weak themselves to accomplish their aims, they have never hesita- 
ted to embroil, impoverish, lay waste their country, by inviting the 



125 

sovereigns of the surrounding countries to burn the cities and rob and 
murder the inhabitants; and, so soon as these invaders were seated in 
their new possessions, to turn traitors to their allies, and draw another 
foreign horde upon them. Thus Italy has been for ages the battle 
ground for France, and Germany, and Spain. This has been the first 
benefit derived from the meekness, holiness and benevolence of the 
sovereign pontiffs, as reaped by Italy. Though her vales are beautiful, 
her soil luxuriant, her climate unsurpassed, and her sky is cloudless, 
Italy is dismembered, trodden under foot, impoverished, ignorant and 
cursed, through popish policy. 

And what has been the government in the states over which the 
church has held civil rule? The government is an elective monarchy, 
but only the cardinals are electors, and these are created by the Pope : 
hence the people in no way participate in his election. His counsellors 
and officers of state are cardinals, depriving the people as entirely of 
all control or influence in the government as if they were serfs. The 
cardinals being all eligible, each election becomes a scramble who 
shall succeed j and as but one can occupy the seat at a time, the usual 
policy has been to put thnt man in who will be likely soonest to vacate 
the place by his death, and thus give the members of the college another 
chance. The cardinal elected, having no successor in whom he is in- 
terested, finds his interest in enriching his family while he lives. Thus 
have the Popes usually acted the part of robbers to the State and aliens to 
the country. The most unjust monopolies are held by the cardinals ; 
they only are permitted to sell the necessaries of life ; oil, groceries, 
corn, flour and bread. The grocers and bakers are mere agents, or, if 
any wish to exercise their industry on their own account, they are ex- 
posed to vexatious oppression. Government regulates the price of bread, 
ostensibly that the people may not pay too dear for it ; but if any baker 
attempts to sell it under the price paid by the holy monopolists, he is 
liable to a severe penalty. The country is unsafe, being infested with 
banditti, and the government has been accustomed to negotiate with, 
instead of suppressing them. There is no trial by jury, and no single 
guarantee is given to the citizen for his liberty; he may be arrested, 
thrown into a dungeon, and kept in suspense as long as the judges 
please. Under such a government it is not surprising that the popula- 
tion does not increase. These States are less populous at this day than 
they were under the Empire of Rome. The taxes are oppressive, and 
yet the whole revenue is scarcely sufficient to pay five per cent, interest 
on the public debt, leaving nothing for current expenses. A standing 
army, composed of hired foreign soldiers, is kept continually in the 
country, to remind the people, with the points of their bayonets, that they 



126 

are living under the best Government in the world, and hence ought to 
be quiet and submissive. The sovereign holds that salvation out of his 
communion is impossible, and that it is his duty to extirpate heresy from 
the earth, hence no toleration in religion can find a place. The rights 
of conscience are unknown, and civil liberty is a heresy as great as 
religious liberty; they are both proscribed subjects throughout his do- 
minions. This, then, is the Government that is compared with what 
Protestantism has done in the United States ! The man that dares to 
raise such an issue is either insane, or wishes to try how far he can ven- 
ture upon the ignorance and blindness of his Romish readers; for no 
sane man could ever have expected that any American could do other 
than smile at his folly. 

Now, when Mr. Brownson tells us "a new day is dawning on this 
chosen land ; a new chapter is about to open in our history, and the 
Church to assume her rightful position and influence" — that, " our 
hills and valleys shall yet echo to the convent bell; the cross shall be 
planted throughout the length and breadth of our land," and that " this 
is to be a Catholic country;" it is saying to us, let ns alone in our work 
of darkness a little longer, and your free institutions shall be exchanged 
for the despotism, poverty and darkness of oppressed and down-trodden 
Italy. Or, if we should take any other Roman Catholic country — you 
shall be placed beside Spain, or Portugal, or Austria, or Mexico ! And 
he who thus writes is a descendent of the Pilgrims! From that band 
of noble martyrs whose blood was shed on Bunker Hill ! Men who 
sacrificed their all, that their children might be free from the oppression 
of a Government whose loins were not so thick as Rome's little finder. 
This degenerate son stands on their ashes, and, beneath the shadow of the 
very monument erected by grateful posterity to their memory, traitor 
like, is beckoning to these tyrants, and lending himself, a willing tool to 
Jesuits, that his country may be undone. 



DANGERS 



JESUIT INSTRUCTION. 



comprising: 
I. SERMON ON JESUIT INSTRUCTION, B*Y/W. S. POTTS. 
II. REVIEW OF DR. POTTS' SERMON, BY O. A. BROWNSON. 
III. REPLY TO BROWNSON'S REVIEW, BY W. S. POTTS. 



L 



ST. LOUIS : 

PUBLISHED BY KEITH & WOODS. 

1846. 










325 




- 














L 

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 



A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRES 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)7793111 












•V-* 






%,^ :;q* 



*v . 



A N 



\°^ 






\V 

A A V * 'o. x* A 











' * 




^ %* 



.V •**. 






" #'%, 



%*" 1 * 



: 



^ *£s 










^ ^ «r 



> K 



-,*6f 



Oo, 







; J^, 















.- ,/ ^ 












O0 







(V- a v ' 8 



,»■■•« 



A° v 









V>^. 










- p. 




c> 






■> 



-^ 



-A 



« • ^ v* 



0> 



"'■ V 



V^Vi ,j>-\ \m 








«v* 



■^ ^ 
*%>** 






***% 









, V "V, 









V 



>;• 



p 




Xv. a 



A v - 












C ' o * * * *'\ 






•> v 



